Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Private Enterprise Services

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what plans he now has for hiving-off the more profitable parts of the postal and telecommunications services to private interests.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): None at present.

Mr. Hamilton: What does the Minister mean by "None at present?" Is there not an element of absurdity in the Government's philosophy of intending to hand back to private enterprise profitable parts of nationalised industries, and nationalising private enterprise which is making a loss?

Mr. Chataway: I cannot go beyond the answer I have given, that I have no proposals to put before the House in this respect.

Mr. Richard: The Minister has repeated today what he told us on the last occasion when this subject was raised, namely, that he had no proposals to put before the House at present. I have been pressing for an answer for six months. Will he go a little further and say that he has no intention of putting proposals to the House to this effect?

Mr. Chataway: I cannot give any blanket assurance to the House on all the activities of the Post Office. All I am pre-

pared to say today is that I have no specific proposals to put forward at this stage.

Local Radio

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now make a statement on the future of Radio Leicester.

Mr. Chataway: As stated in the White Paper "An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting", the Government has concluded that the existing B.B.C. local radio stations, including Radio Leicester, should continue.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister now state whether the existing radio stations, and in particular Radio Leicester, will be permitted to operate on medium wave bands and, having regard to the excellence of the service provided by Radio Leicester, will he give an assurance that there will be no commercial station in opposition in Leicester?

Mr. Chataway: No, I cannot give that latter assurance. On the subject of medium frequencies, it will be a question of applying under international agreements to use the medium frequencies which are primarily allocated to other countries. Thereafter, a frequency plan will be drawn up which will provide medium frequencies for the services to be run both by the Independent Broadcasting Authority and by the B.B.C. I hope that medium frequencies will be available for the B.B.C. local stations at the same time as the commercial stations start.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received since the publication of his White Paper on commercial radio.

Mr. Chataway: I have received about 20 letters from the public.

Mr. Jenkins: Would the Minister care to say what is the nature of those letters? Is it the case that many of the correspondents are extremely confused and worried about what the White Paper means? Have not various interpretations been put on the White Paper by various organisations and people, such as Hughie Green and others, and would it not have been better if a Green Paper had been issued so that the true nature of the


situation could have been reflected in its colour?

Mr. Chataway: I do not think the degree of clarity of the White Paper has caused my correspondents any anxiety. Some have written offering their services, and some have written to say that they do not believe in competition in broadcasting.

Postage Stamps

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to continue to make stamps available in the old denominations during the transitional period of decimalisation, in order to permit the accurate pre-payment of mail by the use of more than one stamp.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. This is a management matter for the Post Office and a direction would be inappropriate.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great shortage of old denomination stamps in South-East London and that grave injustice is being done to those people who have stocks of old denomination stamps still available?

Mr. Chataway: I do not think that any particular difficulties should arise. The Post Office, in laying down acceptable combinations of old and new stamps, has followed the Decimal Currency Board's shoppers' table.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Post Office charges 12½ per cent. or 15 per cent. commission to take back stocks of old stamps which could have been made up on "D" day but for the strike, which has caused people to spend more money than they need have done? Will he look at this again?

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the Post Office will consider the point put by my hon. Friend, but he knows that the Post Office has always legitimately made a charge for cashing stamps since a cost is involved to the Post Office in doing this.

Services (Disruption)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will

issue a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to publish details of the stages by which their services return to normal, following any disruption of service.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. This is a management matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister say how it was that Mr. Ryland gave the impression on television immediately after the strike that the first-class post would be back to normal within a few days? Is he aware that many people have been posting first-class letters on the assumption that they would get to their destination the next day only to find that some have taken as long as a week? Why could not the Post Office have made a series of announcements guaranteeing that 90 per cent. of first-class mail would be delivered within two days, or three days, and so on?

Mr. Chataway: My information is that Mr. Ryland warned on television and at a Press conference immediately after the strike that it would take up to six weeks to get back to normal. I am told that the first-class post is back to normal, although there are still some second-class arrears at a few offices.

Postal and Money Orders

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what general directions he has given to the Post Office Corporation relating to the losses made on postal and money orders service.

Mr. Chataway: None, Sir.

Mr. Baker: Is the Minister aware that in the financial year from March, 1970 the postal order service and the money order service between them lost £3 million'? How long are losses on this scale to be tolerated, since ultimately such losses have to be financed by the general taxpayer?

Mr. Chataway: There is a great deal of force in what my hon. Friend says. The recent increases in tariffs for these services were expected to avoid incurring further losses in the period to March, 1973. The prospects are being reviewed in the aftermath of the strike.

Mr. Richard: Is the Minister aware that I do not like the sound of the last


three or four words he used—namely, that the prospects are being reviewed. Is he further aware that we view with grave concern any interference with these two services, which are used by many ordinary people? The postal order and money order services are an essential part of the present system, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will squash any idea that they are to be disposed of.

Mr. Chataway: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me, each time he asks a question, to say that there will never be a change in anything the Post Office does. He will recall that it was the Labour Government that set targets for the Post Office. If these targets are to be achieved, then it will probably be necessary from time to time to make changes and, as he knows, a review is to be undertaken by the Post Office to look into the scope of its services.

Mr. William Hamilton: How is the Post Office to reach the targets which were laid down if the Government threaten to hive off its profitable sectors?

Mr. Chataway: The profitability of the Post Office will be taken into account in any proposals which are put before the House.

European Economic Community

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what are the salaries paid to the executive heads of the postal and telecommunications administrations in each of the European Economic Community countries; and whether, in order to facilitate United Kingdom entry, he will bring the salary of the Chairman of the Post Office Board into line with these salaries.

Mr. Chataway: It is not possible to make any useful comparison of this kind. In any case, the Post Office as a public corporation has at present no counterpart in Europe.

Mr. Lewis: The information may not be useful to the Minister, but will he please give it? Since the Government appear to be anxious to go into the Common Market under any conditions, they will have to implement its wages and conditions—which in the Community are about three times as high as they are

in this country. Does he intend to treble the wages of Post Office workers and all those in the postal services to help us get into the Common Market?

Mr. Chataway: I am not sure that there is any obligation whatever, either inside or outside the Common Market, to pay the same rates to executives or to anybody else in the nationalised industries as prevail in Europe.

Mr. Richard: Since the Minister has been asked to look at the salary of the Chairman of the Post Office Board, will he say when we are to have a Chairman?

Mr. Chataway: I hope to be able to make an announcement on that matter fairly shortly.

Mr. Marten: Is not one of the arguments advanced for our going into Europe the fact that wages in this country will rise to the same level as the wages paid in the Common Market?

Mr. Chataway: The Question, as my hon. Friend will see, asks me to bring the salary of the Chairman of the Post Office Board into line with the salaries of people who do not actually exist in Europe, since there is no counterpart to the Post Office. I am afraid that the proposition as put to me has its difficulties.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

New Telephones

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what has been the increase in the number of new telephones installed in the United Kingdom between 31st December, 1970, and 31st March, 1971.

Mr. Chataway: I understand that in the period the Post Office supplied 277,295 new exchange connections.

Mr. Costain: Is the Minister aware that the delays in installing new telephones are very serious and that I have had a letter from the manager of the Canterbury telephone exchange informing me that 23 of his contracts are behind schedule? Is the Minister satisfied that


he has enough powers to put some ginger behind the Post Office?

Mr. Chataway: There are delays and in recent years there has been a lengthening of the waiting list; but, as I made clear in the debate which took place shortly before Easter, this is due mainly to the unforeseen rate of demand which has occurred. The number of connections made is substantially greater than the estimates made a year ago.

Mr. Golding: What is the average length of delay caused by the failure of equipment manufacturers to deliver equipment on target? Will the Minister make it clear that the reason for the delay in fitting telephones is the shortage of equipment ordered from private enterprise manufacturers?

Mr. Chataway: I should need notice to give the hon. Gentleman the figure for which he asks, but there are, as he says, delays in delivery of equipment from private manufacturers. The point I am making is that it is not solely their fault, since there has been a greater demand than they were led to expect.

Post Office (Dispute)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many Post Office workers did not return to their employment at the conclusion of the postal workers' dispute.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many postal workers were employed by the Post Office on the day before and the day after the postal strike.

Mr. Chataway: These are management matters for the Post Office, who have indicated that additional wastage was less than half of 1 per cent. of all postal workers.

Mr. Janner: Was not the fact that the wastage was not much more than usual due to the situation that workers were not replaced when they left their jobs? What steps does the Minister propose to take to increase recruitment into the Post Office, and when does he expect to receive the report of the inquiry into the Post Office dispute?

Mr. Chataway: I have no indication when the committee of settlement is likely

to report, although I understand that it will be before the end of this month. Recruitment is a matter for the Post Office.

Mr. William Price: Is the Minister aware of the fact that during the postal dispute the West Midlands Gas Board went in for a spot of strike-breaking by putting out 600,000 bills to a pirate firm and has now had to admit that thousands of them were never delivered? Would the Minister confirm that the only reliable source of delivery is the Post Office?

Mr. Chataway: I am afraid that the incident about which the hon. Gentleman purports to give details is unknown to me.

Telegrams

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what was the average cost and the average proceeds of a telegram in the last financial year of the Post Office Corporation.

Mr. Chataway: I do not have this information but the Post Office's last Annual Report and Accounts show that the service lost £2·6 million in 1969–70.

Mr. Baker: Since the figures indicate that every telegram sent loses money for the Post Office, would my hon. Friend look again at this service, in which 90 per cent. of the telegrams are greetings telegrams or business telegrams? How can the Post Office justify that sort of telegram and make this sort of loss on the service?

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend will appreciate that complications are involved, since there would need to be international negotiations on the international telegram service before any proposal to cease operating the telegram service could be entertained. Also to be considered is the question of the life-and-death telegram service, but the telegraph service, along with other services of the Post Office, is being looked at by the Post Office Board.

B.B.C. (Appointments of Governors)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what proposals he has with regard to appointments of Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Chataway: I hope that an appointment to fill the present vacancy for a national governor for Scotland will be announced very soon; and that thereafter, new appointments will be made as existing ones end.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of the charges which are frequently made on each side of the House that the B.B.C. is biased in the direction of the party opposite, whichever it is, would the Minister consider the possibility of appointing two governors who would be specifically charged with the duty of seeing that a proper balance is preserved? When does he propose to have a debate in the House on the alternative service to the B.B.C.?

Mr. Chataway: On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said that there will be a debate. I am not able to give any indication when that will be.
On the hon. Gentleman's first interesting proposal, I have a suspicion that if that suggestion were followed, he and other hon. Gentlemen might doubt whether the two appointed were unbiased.

Mr. Evelyn King: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the governors have responsibility for policy and that that is a pretty heavy responsibility? Will he see that among the governors, as well as retired people, there is some representation of youth and vigour? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the Director-General has the honourable place of chief executive?

Mr. Chataway: I accept the validity of those points.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: May I ask the Minister why we have had a vacancy for the Scottish national governor since November last year? Since it was known that the post would obviously become vacant some months before, why has there been such a long delay this time?

Mr. Chataway: This is a longer delay than one would want to see, but finding the best available person is sometimes a lengthy process.

Mr. Longden: Are not all the governors of the B.B.C. already charged with the duty of seeing that a proper balance is maintained?

Mr. Chataway: That is so.

Prices and Charges (Reviews)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will cease the present practice whereby his Department keep under constant review the prices and charges for which he has responsibility and initiate a system of monthly reviews of such prices and charges to enable him to show from month to month to what extent since June, 1970, the Government's policy of reducing prices and costs is operating so far as it affects his Departmental responsibilities; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. Monthly reviews would not be a sensible arrangement.

Mr. Lewis: Surely the Government want to publicise the fact that each month they are bringing prices down and cutting the cost of living. Surely one of the most progressive Ministers in the Government would like to participate in this by giving monthly accounts showing how prices are being reduced because of his activities. This is a wonderful suggestion which I should think he would take up.

Mr. Chataway: I hate to turn down all the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. Apart from postal tariffs, of which there are a large number, I am directly responsible for the fees of 80 main types of broadcasting and other radio licences. To review all those every month would not be a worthwhile activity.

Electricity and Gas Meters

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office to ascertain the number of additional staff required for postmen to read electric and gas meters while they deliver mail.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir.

Mr. Costain: The Minister will be aware that his reply is no surprise to me. Will he look at the proposal again? Is he not aware of the number of postmen who take part-time employment? Is there not some advantage to be gained by having electricity and gas meters read by postmen who are well known to the


residents rather than by surprise callers whom they do not know?

Mr. Chataway: This is not a new suggestion. I believe that it has been considered by both the Gas and Electricity Councils, together with a number of other suggestions which have been made over the years. However, I am sure that they and the Post Office will consider what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: While the Minister is, I hope, rejecting the advice of his hon. Friend, will he also reject the advice offered to him this morning that the postmen ought to deliver the milk and the bread as well?

Mr. Chataway: It is not unknown for postmen to do that in some areas. However, this is not a matter for a general direction.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The postmen would certainly be interested in delivering a leaflet for the right hon. Gentleman indicating that builders are to reduce house-prices by £120 because of the reduction in S.E.T. Will the right hon. Gentleman help his hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) by arranging that?

Mr. Chataway: I am not sure that I entirely follow the drift of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Anguilla

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations for a settlement of the Anguillan problem.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): Negotiations are continuing in the search for a settlement. Her Majesty's Government have sought hard to secure an agreed solution, but the present unsatisfactory position cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

Mr. Marten: In view of the anxieties of the Anguillan people, will the Minister tell us when a solution is likely to come about?

Mr. Godber: I understand that anxiety. It is my desire that the problem should be resolved in the near future, but it has proved very difficult and intractable. I hope that it will not be long before I am in a position to make a statement.

European Economic Community

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the Common Market negotiations since March.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I have at present nothing to add to the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 18th March. The next Ministerial negotiating meeting will be on 11th and 12th May.—[Vol. 813, c. 1659–62.]

Mr. Marten: Does this mean that there has been no progress in the negotiations in one month? Now that the Common Market in its latest publication has stressed that the economic and political unions are two sides of the same coin, is it not time that the Government recognised this and brought the question of the direction of political unity into the negotiations? It would be very unwise to take this country in without being absolutely clear where we are going politically.

Mr. Royle: The last Ministerial meeting was held in March. It was always planned to hold the next Ministerial meeting in May. Political matters are not for the negotiations in Brussels.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister give the House a clear undertaking that there will be no nuclear offer to France in exchange for her support for Britain's entry into the Common Market?

Mr. Royle: While no subject will or should be taboo between ourselves and the French, we have no present plans to put to the French concerning any joint nuclear force.

Sir A. Meyer: Will my hon. Friend accept the assurance that we all recognise that the urgent thing to do is to conclude the Brussels negotiations for membership of the Community? At the same time,


will he take note of the helpful suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and make our partners aware of the importance of promoting political unity as swiftly as may be?

Mr. Royle: I do not think that that was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), but I have noted the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer).

Mr. Jay: What proposals have been put by the Government to the Common Market negotiators for safeguarding the British inshore fishing industry?

Mr. Royle: We have made it quite plain to our partners that the British Government reserve their position regarding the fishing regulation which has been passed by the Governments of the Six.

Mr. Biffen: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some ambiguity about the extent to which the future rôle of sterling is subject to negotiation in the present discussions in Brussels? Will he take this opportunity to make clear to the House the extent to which the future rôle of sterling is a subject for the negotiations and as such is welcomed by the British Government?

Mr. Royle: Capital movements are a subject for discussion in Brussels, but the future rôle of sterling is not a subject for discussion in the Brussels negotiations.

Mr. Fernyhough: It seems that the terms which Her Majesty's Government have suggested as the price we would be prepared to pay for entry are obviously completely unacceptable to the Six. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what further concessions, and their costs, we are prepared to make in order to get in?

Mr. Royle: I do not know from where the right hon. Gentleman has formed the view that our suggestions are totally unacceptable.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Ask the French.

Mr. Royle: The hon. Gentleman should know that we are negotiating with six countries, not just the French. We hope to make significant progress at the meeting to be held next month between my right hon. and learned Friend and Ministers of the Six in Brussels.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister knows that there are sharp differences in this House concerning the proposal to introduce a value-added tax in this country. Will the Minister tell us what kind of value-added tax we shall have to introduce if we join the Common Market and whether he regards this as a matter for negotiation before entry?

Mr. Royle: The proposal for a value-added tax was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. We have informed the Community that the five-year transitional period for which we had previously asked will not now be necessary for the introduction of a value-added tax. It will be for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer any detailed questions of the kind put to me by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why he will not discuss with the Foreign Ministers of Norway and Denmark the desirability of adopting a common attitude should any of the three Governments be unable to get a parliamentary majority for entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Anthony Royle: Because the question of obtaining a parliamentary majority for its entry is a matter for each of the countries concerned to resolve.

Mr. Deakins: Is there not a serious possibility of Denmark and Norway being unable to secure adequate parliamentary majorities for entry, for a variety of reasons, including entrenched clauses in the constitution of at least one of those countries? Would not this entail the distinct possibility of Britain's entering the community with all her E.F.T.A. partners outside and with a consequential reimposition of trade barriers between Britain and E.F.T.A.?

Mr. Royle: The fears expressed in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary are unlikely to materialise. We in the United Kingdom regularly exchange information with our E.F.T.A. partners about the progress of our and their negotiations with the E.E.C. There is general agreement that these arrangements are working well. There are further opportunities for discussions at the meetings of the E.F.T.A. Council at


both official and Ministerial level. The next E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council meeting will be held in May at Reykjavik.

Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend recall the Prime Minister's pledge that Britain would not sign the Treaty of Rome without the wholehearted consent of the British people? How will such consultation with the British people take place?

Mr. Royle: The Government have made it plain on many occasions that the decision will be taken by Parliament.

Sir G. de Freitas: If the Government are to discuss with any foreign Government, will the Minister assure us that the Government will also discuss with the Irish Government who, after all, are one of the four applicants?

Mr. Royle: As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), we are having discussions with all our E.F.T.A. partners, so the hon. Gentleman is correct.

Mr. Marten: Although we all recognise that the final decision will have to be taken by Parliament, is it not recognised that it would be absolutely wrong for Britain to enter the Common Market without the full-hearted support of the people? How do the Government intend to test the full-hearted support of the people? Is my hon. Friend aware that Norway, which is a very similar parliamentary democracy to ours, is to have a consultative referendum before the vote in the Norwegian Parliament? Why cannot we do the same?

Mr. Royle: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has made it clear in the House on many occasions since the negotiations have started, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it equally clear, that we shall put the terms that we obtain at Brussels before Parliament and await its approval.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister saying that the Government would be prepared to enter the Common Market even if Norway and Denmark did not?

Mr. Royle: I have said that we are closely consulting our friends in E.F.T.A., and the Irish Republic, and we shall continue to consult them before the final

decision is taken regarding the terms that we obtain at Brussels and before they are put before the House.

Mr. Fell: My hon. Friend said that when the Government know the terms they will put them before Parliament. Surely this is not true. Is not the true position that the Government will put the terms before Parliament only if the Government consider that the terms are worth considering as a basis on which to take us in? Is there not a difference?

Mr. Royle: It is clear that we should ask the House to approve only terms which we considered were right and suitable for Britain.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister has mentioned consultation with our E.F.T.A. partners. Will he give a definite assurance that on 15th May we shall not take any action or give any pledges that can be contrary to the interests of our E.F.T.A. partners? If not, will he give the reasons why he is unable to give such an assurance?

Mr. Royle: We hope to make good progress at the meeting in Brussels in May. The achievement of a wider economic integration in Europe is one of the basic objectives of the E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C. It is generally agreed that it is in nobody's interest to erect fresh trade barriers in Europe. We hope that the arrangements which E.F.T.A. members are seeking to make with the Community will reflect this.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As my hon. Friend says that the decision is to be made by Parliament, and as the Treaty of Rome is of indefinite duration, what will become of our constitutional principle that no Parliament can bind its successor?

Mr. Royle: The Government's attitude to the question which my hon. Friend asked was clearly spelled out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy during the debate in January.

South African Court (Imprisonment of Namibians)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government


at the United Nations concerning the continued imprisonment of 30 Namibians by a South African court purporting to exercise jurisdiction in Namibia in February, 1968.

Mr. Godber: None, Sir.

Mr. Davis: That is an utterly disgraceful answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of people in this territory are awaiting trial? Unlike the United States Government, who were represented at the International Court at The Hague which inquired into this problem, why are Her Majesty's Government not represented? Are they shrugging off their entire responsibilities?

Mr. Godber: No. We do not shrug off our responsibilities in the least. We are awaiting the outcome of the consideration of the International Court of Justice of the position of South West Africa.

South Africa (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further requests he has now received from the South African Government for the supply of arms.

Mr. Godber: No new request has been received beyond that dealt with in the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Members for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) and Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on 22nd February.—[Vol. 812, c. 34–42.]

Mr. Davis: Has there been no informal, of not formal, approach by South Africa? Is there nothing in the Press suggestion that the South African Government have requested us to sell them six frigates? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman at least assert a degree of self-respect and say categorically that the British Government will not entertain this application?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that I take responsibility for what is said in the Press. I do not. Nor is there any truth in the general statements which have been appearing in the Press about this matter. I have stated the British position precisely. I stated it precisely in the debate in the House on 3rd March, and our position remains exactly as it was then.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Considering the present levels of unemployment in this country, would not some South African orders for ships, aircraft and equipment be very welcome to our workers, besides being in the interests of the defence of the free world?

Mr. Godber: I accept that the question of employment is very important. However, the position regarding supply to South Africa is precisely as I stated it in the debate, and I have nothing to add to what I said on that occasion.

Mr. Foley: Will Government policy in this matter be determined by the nature of requests for arms from South Africa, or have the Government made up their mind on the principle involved?

Mr. Godber: We stated our position on the principle as long ago as July, when my right hon. Friend stated it in the House. There has been no change at all in that position. It remains precisely as it was stated, and I spelt it out clearly in the debate last month. I have nothing to add to what I said on that occasion.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there has been no formal or informal approach by the South African Government for the purchase of frigates from the British Government?

Mr. Godber: There has been no approach for frigates. There has been —this has been stated in previous answers —a visit to Europe by a team, but no specific request has been made to us for frigates.

Mr. John Morris: May we have an assurance that this matter has not been raised in any way either with officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department or with the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Godber: I have made it clear that no such specific request has been made. If or when one is made, the necessary decisions will be taken and the House informed. We have made the position abundantly clear in regard to our legal obligations. It was pointed out in the debate last month, when this matter was under discussion, that we reserved our right to supply, and there has been no change in that position.

Treaty on Chemical and Biological Warfare

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position on the negotiations for the conclusion of a Treaty on Chemical and Biological Warfare at Geneva.

Mr. Godber: There has been a welcome development in these negotiations. On 30th March the Soviet Government indicated their readiness to seek agreement on the basis which this country has been advocating since 1968. We hope there will now be rapid progress towards such agreement.

Mr. Dalyell: Whereas we can applaud the American decision to destroy stockpiles of biological weapons, do not events in China make it doubly urgent to get some agreement on chemical weapons?

Mr. Godber: Yes, certainly, and the fact that progress is being made on biological weapons makes us hope that it will be possible to advance to arrangements covering chemicals. There is no question of derogation in regard to chemicals. We felt that it was better to make progress on the biological side first, and that was the attitude of the Labour Government, with which we agree.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a substantial step forward and is something for which he and his predecessors have been seeking for some time? Acceptance of the British technical position that the two sections of this important and difficult problem should be separated, at least for the first phase, augurs well for the future.

Mr. Godber: I agree. It is a difficult problem. We are at present studying the Soviet proposals. I hope that it will now be possible to make progress.

Southern Sudan

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to raise at the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations the question of the recognition of human rights in the Southern Sudan.

Mr. Godber: The Human Rights Commission ended its annual session last

month and will not meet again until next year. The matter was drawn to the attention of the Commission at its last session by a representative of the Anti-Slavery Society.

Mr. Archer: is it in the Government's mind to accept responsibility for the observance of human rights overseas? If not, do they take that view because they doubt the existence of evidence of infringement or because of some less overworked excuse?

Mr. Godber: It is not that we doubt it but that we are anxious to find the best way to make progress on these matters. It is not necessarily the case that the best progress can always be made by seeking to raise such issues specifically at governmental level in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Rhodesia

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on the talks with the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

Mr. Godber: Exploratory exchanges are continuing but I cannot at present add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) on 22nd March. —[Vol. 814, c. 15–16.]

Mr. Hamilton: As Mr. Smith has already said that the five principles are of no significance now and are irrelevant, and as Her Majesty's Government are committed to negotiating only on the basis of those five principles, what is the use of continuing with this meaningless charade? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if these talks fail, as they are bound to do, we shall maintain the full ferocity of our sanctions policy?

Mr. Godber: I cannot comment on Press reports of what Mr. Smith or anybody else has said. These exploratory discussions will continue as long as there is a possibility of progress being made.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us very simply whether the Government intend to stick to those five principles?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: First, is my right hon. Friend sure that there are properly qualified people at our embassy in South Africa to deal with these very important talks? Second, is my right hon. Friend aware that Rhodesia is at the moment about the only State in Africa with nobody detained under emergency powers?

Mr. Godber: We have full confidence in our ambassador and his staff to deal with these matters. I cannot comment on the matter raised in the second half of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, as that takes us into a wider field.

Mr. Foley: During the period during which exploratory talks are taking place, are the Government continuing to report suspected breaches of sanctions to the United Nations?

Mr. Godber: These reports have been continuing up to the present.

Turkey (Production of Cannabis)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what request he has now received from the Turkish Government for discussions on bilateral assistance for Turkish farmers to transfer to cash crops, other than cannabis; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): None, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 22nd March.—[Vol. 814, c. 29.]

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not the view of many who have studied the international traffic in drugs, including members of the International Narcotics Committee and including Senator Alan Cranston and his colleagues in the United States Congress, that something must be done about the source of drugs? If the Government are serious in their intention to do something about what is generally recognised to be a very wide drugs problem, is it not up to them to tackle the problem at the source, namely, by helping Turkey and other countries of origin to do something about it?

Mr. Wood: I assured the hon. Gentleman three weeks ago that we are ready to help the Turkish Government if they want us to do so. The problem of crop diversification must be a matter for the

Turkish Government. Our interference unwanted would be just about as unpopular in Turkey as Turkish interference would be in our affairs.

Collective Passports (Schoolchildren)

Sir Elwyn Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware of difficulties being encountered by children of Commonwealth immigrants when school authorities seek to include them in Collective Passports; and whether he will take steps to ease these problems.

Mr. Godber: I am aware of these difficulties, but we are bound by international agreement to include only children who are United Kingdom nationals in collective passports issued in this country.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Is the Minister aware that these difficulties have given rise to great concern, because they have at any rate given the impression of racial discrimination taking place in schools among pupils? May not one of the difficulties well be a failure to explain which formalities are required? If the convention is creating special difficulties, is it not possible to look at the terms of the convention with a view to advocating a review if it be necessary?

Mr. Godber: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled this Question so that, if it is felt that such discrimination is taking place, I can refute it, because such a feeling is entirely unfounded. This is an international arrangement which was introduced specifically to try to help groups of young people for travel purposes. It is a fairly complicated arrangement, and to get agreement a good deal of discussion in the Council of Europe was involved. It would be difficult to get alterations made to the convention, but there is provision for children who have subsequently qualified for United Kingdom citizenship to be brought within the terms of a collective passport so long as proper notice is given. There is a four-week period of notice. Generally speaking, the arrangement works reasonably satisfactorily.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has rightly said that this matter has caused considerable trouble in West Ham, East Ham


and the London Borough of Newham. Will the Minister have an investigation made to ensure that these problems do not occur in other areas, because there has been an outcry in the areas I mentioned?

Mr. Godber: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I looked into this closely to see whether we could help. I wish that I could help, but there are difficulties. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that in the case which I believe he has in mind it was possible for the three Indian children concerned to be brought within the terms of the collective passport, because they had acquired British citizenship. Therefore, it was possible to clear that case up. It is also possible to clear up many other cases.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Would the Minister of State see whether there is any room for better liaison between his Department and the Home Office in this matter? When the particular case to which my hon. Friend referred arose, it was necessary to communicate with both Departments. There was, if I may say so, a good deal of apparent passing of the buck. Would the right hon. Gentleman look at this possibility of a better link between the Departments?

Mr. Godber: I will consider the matter in view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. Normally there is very close liaison, but I will certainly follow up the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITORS (CONVEYANCING CHARGES)

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Attorney-General what action he is taking to implement the recommendations in Report No. 164 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, Command Paper No. 4624, with regard to the reduction of conveyancing charges by solicitors.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): Consideration is now being given to the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes in its recent Report on Solicitors' Remuneration.

Mr. Kaufman: Recalling that when the National Board for Prices and

Incomes made recommendations for increases in solicitors' charges, those increases were implemented with all due speed, in one case at a considerably higher level than had been suggested, should not the Government ensure that these charges are reduced so that would-be home owners may be helped—apart from enabling the Government on this unique occasion to cut a price at a stroke?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this Final Report was published only on 1st April. It is being studied. Its recommendations must be studied in the light of the Monopolies Commission Report relating to the professions. All the professions have been asked to make submissions by May on any proposed modifications they may have. When the necessary studies have been completed, action will be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — RACE RELATIONS ACT (PROCEEDINGS FOR INCITEMENT)

Mr. Rose: asked the Attorney-General whether he will initiate proceedings for incitement under the Race Relations Act, 1968, against Mr. Brian Williams of Hall Green, Birmingham, in respect of the two documents sent to him by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley.

The Attorney-General: I have received no such documents from the hon. Member.

Mr. Rose: I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not yet received the documents. Will he bear in mind, when he looks at them, that one contains the most virulent type of Nazi propaganda and that the other is a clear incitement under the 1965 Act against a section of the community? I assure him that he will receive the information some time today.

The Attorney-General: I cannot, of course, comment on this issue until I receive the documents. The Question was put down on 7th April, 12 days ago. I am afraid that I cannot help the House as I have not received the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Investment

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many letters he has received since 1st January on investment in industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Approximately 75.

Mr. Carter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. In the light of today's announcement and the deplorable level of unemployment, would he not now think that the time is ripe to urge his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stimulate the economy, thus providing the only true base from which investment can spring, and at the same time create fresh employment opportunities?

Mr. Ridley: It is true that the Government inherited a very tight liquidity position in industry which led to a flattening out of investment, but I believe that the October measures, coupled with the very encouraging Budget which my right hon. Friend produced, will lead to a buoyancy in investment.

Mr. Deakins: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that if the Budgetary measures to stimulate investment prove inadequate, he will during the next financial year take such extra measures as may be necessary without waiting for the 1972 Budget?

Mr. Ridley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will watch the situation, but it must be realised that the Government are not the only party who can contribute towards industrial buoyancy. A moderation of wage pressure together with further initiatives by business could all play their part in helping.

Mr. Kaufman: Would not the greatest contribution that the Government could make be to withdraw the Bill abolishing investment grants which was so misguidedly introduced before Parliament and which will reduce investment in those areas where it is most needed?

Mr. Ridley: It is not investment of itself which is good. It is investment which leads to profitable and successful

enterprise, which is the reason for the Government's Bill.

Mr. Bob Brown: Bearing in mind the distressingly high unemployment in the North-East, and in development areas in general, would the hon. Gentleman consider allowing firms already in development areas desirous of expanding to have the same benefits as are given to new firms coming into the development areas?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows that existing firms in development areas are allowed free depreciation, which is a very great advantage. Once industry moves into a profitable phase, this is something that they will be pleased to have and it will help greatly.

FRANCE (OFFICIAL VISIT)

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister if he will now seek to make an official visit to France.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has no specific plans to do so at present.

Mr. Carter: I thank the Minister for that reply. I recognise that this is clearly a delicate matter, but would he nevertheless agree that a meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of France should take place before any decision about entry to the E.E.C. is taken, in order clearly to dramatise both the importance and the detail of Britain's application to join the E.E.C.?

Mr. Royle: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 11th February that he has indicated to the French Prime Minister that he would be very welcome to come here whenever he is able to do so. There are no specific plans at the present time for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to have discussions with the French President.

Mr. Biffen: During the absence of such an official plan, would my hon. Friend nevertheless arrange for the Prime Minister to send a telegram today to President Pompidou underlining categorically the assurance which was given from the Government Front Bench by


him earlier this afternoon that the rôle of sterling was not a subject for negotiations at the Common Market at Brussels?

Mr. Royle: I do not think that such a telegram is necessary.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Quite apart from the question of the E.E.C., would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is now the time for some sort of comparing of notes between the British and French Governments about a common approach to China, in view of the recent developments in that country?

Mr. Royle: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's question, but I hardly feel that it comes within the Question which has been put to me.

Mr. Marten: In view of the likelihood that the Common Market negotiations might break down, and the extreme importance of Anglo-French relations, as well as the great love which this country has for France, would my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to get over to France as soon as he possibly can? We want to see Anglo-French relations maintain the high level at which they have always been kept.

Mr. Royle: I am not sure where my hon. Friend obtained the idea that the negotiations might break down. No great questions of principle remain between the six countries who are members of the E.E.C. and ourselves. What is important is that no one should build up into a crisis or a matter of principle what are primarily transitional problems.

Mr. Fernyhough: In reply to an earlier supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister had extended a warm welcome to the President of France to pay an early visit to this country. Could he tell us what kind of reply he received?

Mr. Royle: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me, or perhaps it was my fault. I said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indicated to the French Prime Minister—not the French President—that he would be welcome to come here if he is able to do so.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The acting Prime Minister said a moment ago that nothing

is likely to hold up negotiations to our getting into E.E.C. Has he not seen the Press today in which it is stated categorically that the French are demanding—not asking but demanding—that we shall reveal to them the secrets of our nuclear weapons which we get from America, and the transfer of which is banned under the McMahon Act, and that unless we give them that information they will not agree to negotiate on our entry into E.E.C.? Surely this is a matter which the Prime Minister ought to go to France to discuss with the Prime Minister of France and the President of France.

Mr. Royle: I am not responsible for what the Press writes. Am I now to expect that the hon. Gentleman has plans to become acting Leader of the Opposition?

Dame Irene Ward: Following my hon. Friend's statement that there is nothing outstanding between the other countries and ourselves in our application to enter the European Economic Community, may I ask him whether he realises that at the moment we are all very anxious about the fishing industry? Could he, therefore, as there seems to be a little time to spare in Question Time, ask the Leader of the House whether we could have a debate on the fishing industry?

Mr. Royle: The point I made was not that no matters were outstanding but that no great questions of principle remained in connection with the negotiations in Brussels.
With regard to the fishing industry, perhaps my hon. Friend missed my comments earlier this afternoon when I answered a Question on the specific subject of fishing and the fisheries regulation passed by the European Economic Community. As for a debate on the subject, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

1971 CENSUS

Mr. Thorpe: Mr. Thorpe (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he proposes to take to assure the public that information obtained from them for the National Census remains confidential to a clearly defined group of individual persons.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): As the House knows, the Order authorising arrangements for the Census, including details of all the topics to be covered, was approved by the House on 17th February, 1970. The detailed questions were before the House from May to November, 1970 and went unchallenged. There seem to be two main sources of anxiety —firstly, secrecy, and secondly, the position of the immigrant communities.
On secrecy, I should like to give the following clear and specific assurances. Both this and the last Government have given an absolute guarantee that information about individual people or families will in no circumstances be released to any authority or person outside the Census organisation itself. There is a further fear about secrecy through the use of the computer. In fact, no names or addresses are fed into the computer.
Fears have been expressed also about possible disclosures by enumerators. All enumerators are required to sign an undertaking to maintain the secrecy of the information they handle. Any failure in this respect makes them liable to fines or imprisonment up to two years. Furthermore, anyone who wishes to send his answers direct to the Census officer for the local area may give the information in this way and so by-pass the enumerator. I am sure that the House as a whole would wish to assure the enumerators that it has the same confidence in their integrity that has always been shown in past Censuses.
Secondly, as to the immigrant communities, in addition to the absolute guarantees given for the community as a whole, I welcome this opportunity to reinforce the words of the Chairman of the Community Relations Commission, Mr. Mark Bonham-Carter, when he said:
It would be particularly sad if immigrants were to look on the census as a threat to their security. It is the very reverse. The truth set forth in facts and figures is our chief weapon and I urge them to use it.

Mr. Thorpe: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Since the Registrar General has made clear in the past week that he expects to sell to third parties £500,000 worth of the information which we provide, does not the right hon.

Gentleman agree that it is not unreasonable for the public to want the fullest knowledge about the form in which such information will be made available? Second, since some of the safeguards have already broken down, in so far as close neighbours—and in one case a local headmaster—have been appointed enumerators, since many of the enumerators—this has been my experience—do not know of the facility whereby people may post their forms direct to the Census officer, and further, since an undertaking was given by the previous Government, during a debate in which my colleague Mr. Eric Lubbock and, I think, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) both took part, that there would be pre-Census publicity, and there has been no pre-Census publicity by this Government, will the Leader of the House consider the suggestion that an independent watchdog be appointed, the British Computer Society, to report upon the confidentiality of the procedures and to vet the material which is made available to third parties?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I repeat the assurance that no information about identified persons or households will be released from the Census Office. On the question of pre-publicity for the Census, a leaflet was delivered to every household before Easter informing the public that a Census was being taken and repeating the assurances given in the debate last year that their answers would be treated as wholly confidential.
On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I am glad to tell him that, in view of the special importance of the Census, the Census Office will gladly accept an offer made by the British Computer Society to discuss with it the arrangements for security, and the same will apply to any other responsible body.

Mr. Longden: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the very last people who should be heard to complain about this Census are Members of the House of Commons who neither voted nor spoke against the questionnaire when it was introduced by the last Administration?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is the fact: the House had the opportunity, it considered the questions, and right hon. and hon. Members thought that the arrangements were perfectly adequate for the purpose.

Mr. Millan: As the Minister responsible for answering the Census debate in February 1970, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that all the assurances which he has given today were given explicitly in that debate? In view of that and the marked lack of interest of hon. Members at that time, is it not thoroughly irresponsible and hypocritical now for any hon. Member to raise some of these issues in terms which will cause deep concern and anxiety to members of the public and, in particular, to immigrant members of the community?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept at once that the assurances which I have given are exactly in line with the assurances given by the hon. Gentleman speaking from this Front Bench in the past. As for the actions of any hon. Member, I have always stuck to one simple formula, and I still do, that each right hon. and hon. Member is entirely responsible for the consequences of his own actions.

Mr. Buck: If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party is to escape a charge of political opportunism, ought not the House to have a further explanation from him as to why his official spokesman in February last year welcomed this Census and raised none of the matters which the right hon. Gentleman has been raising since that date?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that those are matters for me.

Mr. Thorpe: Perhaps the Leader of the House will agree that it might be rewarding for the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) if he were to read that debate again to see the very specific questions which Mr. Eric Lubbock put, and understand that it was only upon his receiving certain specific assurances from the previous Government that there was not a vote on that Prayer, though it is our contention that this Government have not stuck to those undertakings?

Mr. Whitelaw: I immediately refute the suggestion that this Government have not stuck to the undertakings of the last Government. We have done so absolutely. So much for the past; there it is. It is clear from the feeling I sense in the House today that what the

House wants to do now is to give the maximum reassurance to the public, and, in particular, to the immigrant communities, on the question of the Census form, and to hope that all, in their own interest, will fill up the forms.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: What the right hon. Gentleman has just said will, I believe, command widespread support in the House. Great though our respect and affection is for the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), many of us do not entirely go with his Easter extravaganza. In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is of great importance that the immigrant communities should realise that nothing is of more value to them than that the facts, not fantasies, should be known? Nevertheless, will the right hon. Gentleman look at the question—I am not necessarily taking a view on it—of whether the sale of information to private organisations for a limited amount of the cost of the Census is really worthwhile, and, in particular, will he give an assurance that there will be no question of the sale of small blocks of information—relating, say, to a particular village —which might well result in individual identification?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said in support of my hope that in all our interests, and particularly in the case of immigrant communities, the Census forms will be properly filled in. On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I think it right that I should repeat the absolute assurance which I gave before, that no information about identified persons or households will be released from the Census Office. I think that that covers that point.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The question of small areas?

Mr. Whitelaw: Small areas, too.

Miss Quennell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great difficulty which local authorities have in identifying disabled people and recognise that an opportunity has not been taken in this Census for identifying the number of disabled persons in this country? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend and suggest that subsequent Censuses


should use this form of inquiry to probe that difficult area in our society?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says, which goes rather further than this year's Census.

Mr. Leslie Huekfield: Will not the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless accept that many organisations of rather dubious bona fides have expressed interest in Census information? Has he, for instance, taken into account the firm of Tracing Services Ltd., which has expressed a very direct interest in the Census and which has already been convicted on charges of public mischief? Will he get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to announce some restrictions on the sale of information on a small scale to such organisations? This is a very important point, and the House should have some reassurance on it.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that I have already given that assurance in answer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). I know that the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in the problems of merging computer tapes. To reassure him on that point, I should say that in order for individuals to be identified it would be necessary to steal the individual household tapes, to know in which order they were placed, and to steal the key which describes the information entered on the tapes. They will certainly not be issued from the Census Office.

Mr. Huckfield: Not true.

Mr. Burden: Is it not also true that people who do not wish to send their completed Census forms through the post or hand them to the enumerator may seal them in an envelope and hand them to the enumerator?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that to be so.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many of the misgivings have arisen from the fact that many enumerators live in the same street as the area for which they are responsible, or in the same block of flats, as is the case in my constituency? Therefore, should not all enumerators be instructed that where they are working in circumstances like that they should inform the

persons concerned that they have a right to send their forms direct to the office rather than hand them to the enumerator?

Mr. Whitelaw: In view of the excellent service given by the enumerators in the past, it is important that the House should once again express its complete confidence in their integrity. I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall ask the Registrar General to look into that point.

Mr. Chapman: Bearing in mind the need for the information asked for in the Census forms and the particularly desperate need in areas of high immigrant concentration, will my right hon. Friend use the Government's good offices to suggest to the very few immigrant leaders who have encouraged their followers not to sign or complete the forms that they should reverse their statements so that there may be a full and factual grasp of information in those areas?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, knowing as I do his particular interest and the way in which he handles the question in his constituency. I hope that what has been said in the House today by the right hon. Member for Stechford and hon. Members on both sides will lead the immigrant communities and their leaders to feel reassured, and that the leaders will therefore help by suggesting to their followers that it is in their own interests to complete the forms.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: A person could accidentally or deliberately fill in the wrong information, or he might not know the answer to the questions. If there is to be absolute secrecy within the Departments, will there be a check? Obviously, if action is to be taken, possibly resulting in a fine, there much be a check somewhere to see whether the information given is correct. There may be plenty of people who honestly do not know where their parents were born and can only go by what their deceased parents may have told them. They may well put down incorrect information. If there is 100 per cent. secrecy, where and how will there be a check, when other Departments are not to be consulted?

Mr. Whitelaw: The problem the hon. Gentleman raises is one with which many


of us in the House may have some sympathy. When I considered filling in a form myself I had to make an extensive check before I discovered some of the information. But this has happened before in previous Censuses, and I do not think that it has given the sort of trouble to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castle (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the latest unemployment figures.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): Between March and April the total number registered as unemployed in Great Britain rose by 21,026 to 774,533, or 3·4 per cent. of all employees.

Mrs. Castle: Is not that reply both alarming and sketchy? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the figure for the total registered unemployed males is 4·6 per cent.? Do not the figures show an alarming increase for this time of the year, when the trend should be downwards, giving us an seasonally adjusted increase of 48,000? Is not the really significant figure on which he has not reported to the House the rise in the number of wholly unemployed to the highest level for any month since May 1940, particularly since this figure has been increasing for every month since October? Is not that proof that we are faced with the total collapse both of the Government's election promises and of their economic policies? Will the Government therefore stop blaming the unions for all their troubles, face up to their responsibilities and get together with the trade unions and work out a solution to this appalling situation?

Mr. Bryan: The Government are concerned with these figures, especially at this time of year, but the truth is that they show that the economy is still suffering from the cost inflation which caused the continuous rise in unemployment all through the years of Socialist Government.

Mr. Cooper: Is it not a fact that sitting on the Opposition Front Bench there are the two gentlemen and the lady—the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), the right hon. Lady

the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins)—who are the architects of the present situation? Is not it a fact that they had a meeting in November 1969, when they threw away their incomes policy and decided to let the whole thing rip, and is not that why we are faced with today's situation? Are not we witnessing today hypocrisy to a level never before known in this country?

Mr. Bryan: Not only are they the architects of those policies, but they are now inviting us to readopt them, policies which clearly failed in their time. We are adopting our own policy. It will take time because of the position we took over, but it will in the end succeed.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that within the disastrous figures for Scotland of 123,000 unemployed the male unemployment figure has risen by 4,245, representing a percentage of 7·5 per cent. of wholly unemployed males compared with 5·4 per cent. at this time last year, an increase of 50 per cent.? When will the frightened man from the Scottish Office do something about these disastrous figures?

Mr. Bryan: Many of the regional figures are matters of great concern for the Government, and steps are already being taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for such areas. In each of these areas my Department has its own job teams on the spot doing the very best they can to help.

Mr. Fell: What percentage of this unemployment figure is the direct result of the strike position over the last few months?

Mr. Bryan: The strike position must have had its effect, but my hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that there is no statistic to support it.

Mr. Varley: Does not the smug complacency of the Minister of State, coupled with the Government's totally inadequate regional policy, mean that the Government have accepted an unemployment figure for next winter of over one million unemployed? Is not this utterly disgraceful?

Mr. Bryan: If the hon. Gentleman worked in my Department he would realise that there is complacency neither there nor in any part of the Government. Every effort is being made to put this matter right.

Miss Quennell: Can my hon. Friend give any indication or analysis of the growth of unemployment industry by industry? Can he say what the position is for agriculture?

Mr. Bryan: I shall have to have notice of that question.

Mr. Orme: The unemployment figure for the same month last year showed a reduction of 7,200. Does not this latest increase of 21,000 highlight the seriousness of the situation? Will the hon. Gentleman stop blaming wage applications by the trade unions and look at the Government's policy in relation both to the regions and to publicly-owned industries, including the steel industry? Will the Government not do something to reflate the economy and move back to a policy of full employment? If Iain Macleod had still been alive and on those benches he would not have tolerated this situation.

Mr. Bryan: Many of these questions are, of course, for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the most valuable and immediate effect of his Budget is a revival of confidence in business, which will cause an increase in investment. Nothing is more favourable to more employment than more investment.

Mr. John Page: Has my hon. Friend any indication of the numbers declared redundant in individual companies collectively due to lost business because of cost inflation?

Mr. Bryan: I am afraid that we have no statistics for that.

Mr. Pardoe: The proportions of the unemployed have now reached a disgraceful stage. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the direct consequence of the Government pursuing the last Government's policy to its logical conclusion? Is he further aware that the country is getting bored with the Government blaming the previous Government as an

excuse and as a substitute for an economic policy? Will he now get down to a policy for growth? The Budget has done nothing to increase confidence either among businessmen to invest or in the regions.

Mr. Bryan: The hon. Gentleman must be the only Member of this House who thinks that we are following the same policy as the last Government. We are following exactly the opposite policy. We never said that such a mess could be cleared up in so short a time. It will take time.

Mr. John Morris: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this black figure—the blackest April since 1940—means that there has been an increase, seasonally adjusted, of 50,000 in one month? What do the Government intend to do about it? When does he expect to see a fall in unemployment? Does he accept that there is genuine fear in every steel town, particularly in South Wales, that when the Government's plans for the steel industry are announced there will be an increase of unemployment in each of those towns?

Mr. Bryan: The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman come badly from a member of a party which inherited in 1964 an unemployment figure of 322,000 and left us a legacy of 547,000. Having said that, I agree that of course the position in Wales is serious. We are very concerned about it. We shall follow up our policies and do our best to help.

Mr. Marten: Is it not true that employers and employees by combining together in the recent wage settlements are pricing many good workers out of jobs?

Mr. Bryan: That is so. But having said that, I would add that some of the excessive wage settlements we have seen have by no means been average. They have been sensational ones and have therefore hit the headlines. On the other hand, many settlements in the private and public sectors show that our policy is having an effect.

Mr. Heller: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on Merseyside on only two occasions since the war has there been a real reduction in unemployment, and that both those occasions were under a


Labour Government? Is he further aware that we now have over 40,000 unemployed on Merseyside and that the figure is rising all the time? Is it not clear that the Government's policy for Merseyside—quite apart from the effects on the rest of the country—has been proved utterly disastrous? The Government are showing complete complacency and on each occasion are having to hide behind the futile argument of cost inflation when the real basis of rising unemployment is the lack of policy by the Government to deal with it.

Mr. Bryan: A large amount of employment taken to Liverpool was taken there by the Conservative Party. The motor industry was introduced to that area by my party. Therefore, I think that the figures the hon. Gentleman has quoted are likely to be untrue.

Mr. Rost: Is it not the case that if hon. Members opposite were as concerned as they say they are they would be contributing towards reducing unemployment by using their influence in trying to stop inflationary pay claims, as the Government are trying to do?

Mr. Bryan: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am a little confused by some of the hon. Gentleman's statements. As I understand it, he has said that the Government are pursuing a policy diametrically opposed to that of the last Government—I entirely agree—but that the results of that policy, if bad, are to be attributed entirely to the last Government. Following these somewhat confused answers, will he state clearly whether it is the policy of the Government, confronted with these extremely disturbing unemployment figures, to allow them to rise still further, to hold them where they are, or to bring them down?

Mr. Bryan: The right hon. Gentleman is very slow to understand a very simple argument. What I have said so far is that we took over a mess—that is incontrovertible. We never said that it would be cleared up quickly. We said that it would take time. But we are clearing it up.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Leaving aside entirely the hon. Gentleman's previous replies, will he now answer my question? Is it the policy of the Government to

bring unemployment down, to hold it where it is, or allow this disturbing trend to continue?

Mr. Bryan: Our policy is to bring unemployment down by the success of our policy. As I have said, it will take time to succeed, but it will succeed.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware of how anxious we are in the north of England about the increase in unemployment? Can he ask British Railways why it has got rid of so many men? Es he aware that it has got rid of so many people on the London Underground, for example, that it is not particularly safe late at night? Will he point out to the Opposition that a great deal of unemployment has been caused by people being dismissed by nationalised industries—through the use of one-man buses, for example—because they cannot pay their way?

Mr. Bryan: My hon. Friend has given one more example of the effect of cost inflation and the high and rising cost of wages.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Has the hon. Gentleman made any estimate of when the Government will be successful in bringing down employment? Will it be by the end of this year?

Mr. Bryan: We do not make estimates of that sort.

Mrs. Castle: In order to dispose of the question of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), who suggested that the increase in the unemployment figures was due to strikes, would the hon. Gentleman now confirm to the House that the number temporarily stopped this month is down by 9,000?

Mr. Bryan: I do not see what one part of the right hon. Lady's question has to do with the other. I would only say that at no time have I said that strikes are the main reason. We have said that cost inflation is the main reason.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate the matter now.

Sir G. de Freitas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

1971 CENSUS

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which I think should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat of the invasion of our individual privacy posed by the use of computers in the 1971 Census".
I stress that my objection to some of the factors which are emerging about the 1971 Census are rather more specific and technical than those of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), who earlier asked a Private Notice Question. I am more specifically concerned about the threat posed to our individual privacy by the use of computers in analysing the disaggregated data which will emerge from the Census.
Despite the reassurances which we have been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House this afternoon, we still have not heard any specific denial of the belief that information in 50-household lots will be available. Despite some of the reassurances, I am not satisfied that individual household tapes are needed to prise out personal information by using computers. In fact, if I may be so bold as to say so, when he made his statement trying to reassure me the Leader of the House rather missed the point. It is precisely because in using computers one does not need to have individual household data that I am still concerned. I will willingly send the right hon. Gentleman details of how it is possible to extract a personal dossier from a statistical data bank. There is a wide

range of knowledge on this subject, and I feel that the right hon. Gentleman, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Registrar General ought to have studied it in more detail.
The fact is that so far we have heard nothing at all about the limits of the scale of the information which will be available. So far we have heard nothing at all about the limits which will be placed on the gathering of information from individuals, and so far we have heard nothing of the kinds of safeguards which will be applied to the types of companies and individuals to whom this information may be sold.
I repeat that many of the kinds of agencies and bureaux and systems which may be seeking this information are not the kinds of systems and agencies the bona fides of which I would personally respect.
In that context and in the absence of a specific reasssurance on these technical points from the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to move the Adjournment so that the House may discuss the matter at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat of the invasion of our individual privacy posed by the use of computers in the 1971 Census.
The House is familiar with the terms of Standing Order No. 9. I have considered the matter very carefully and I understand the hon. Member's interest in it, but I have decided that I cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Motion made, and question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ppm]

Orders of the Day — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. What is the strictly legal position of the Chair in the debate which is about to begin, Mr. Speaker? Am I not right in saying that, provided he does not raise a matter involving legislation, any hon. Member can raise any matter he likes, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) could raise the subject in which he is interested and my hon. Friends concerned with unemployment could raise that matter?
Although for convenience it has been said that the subject of the debate is to be the Royal Air Force, am I not right in saying that that does not preclude any hon. Member from raising any subject which he whises to raise, provided that it does not involve the introduction of legislation? I know that that may be untidy and unusual and perhaps not welcomed by the Government, or even the Opposition Front Bench, but am I not right in believing that, strictly speaking, the Chair would be unable to pull up an hon. Member who raised any of those subjects, even though such an intervention were unwelcome?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right and in strict theory there is no rule of order to prevent an hon. Member from raising any topic not involving legislation on the Motion for the Adjournment. There is a convention, a rule which exists for the convenience of the House and so as to have some order for our business, but the Chair has no sanction. Of course, it has a certain discretion in the selection of speakers.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): It would be fair if I pointed out that it has been felt valuable to the House that this new procedure

should be adopted in order to have a wider spread of debates on Service subjects. This has meant that the later debates would take place on the Adjournment. This arrangement has been made for the general convenience of hon. Members in all parts of the House.

4.7 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Antony Lamhton): As my right hon. Friend has said, this debate represents a break from tradition. In the past, it has been the custom for the debate on the Royal Air Force to take place in March as one of a series of debates on the Defence Estimates. The debate was on a Motion to approve the Vote A for the following year, and it always provided an opportunity for a debate about the Air Force. This debate, although different in form, offers precisely the same Opportunity and accordingly offers other opportunities for speaking.
This is the second year in which the Defence Estimates have been presented as a whole under the integrated Defence Vote Structure introduced by the previous Labour Government last year. Before preparing this speech, I looked back over many past debates on the Royal Air Force. Over the years, there has been a considerable change in the pattern of debates. Before the war, there used to be an empirical discussion on the expansion of the R.A.F., whereas since the war there has been a gradual reduction in the size of the Service, both in manpower and aircraft, as hon. Members will know.
But, despite that contraction, we still have the same number of debates on defence, and this has often encouraged repetition. This I hope to avoid. I do not plan to follow too closely the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), who gave a wide ranging and interesting speech last year, ranging from such subjects as exercises in the Mediterranean and the protection of our air space, to aerial surveys carried out in the Maldive Islands and the giving of R.A.F. assistance at the dam in the Llwyrst Wen Reservoir in the Maerdi Valley, Glamorganshire. Despite considerable research I have been unable to find any previous mention of this locality in defence debates so certainly, on this matter, I will not be repetitive.
I would like to turn to some of the fundamental problems facing the R.A.F. and the first one with which I shall deal is perhaps the most important of all, manpower. I am glad that, with certain exceptions, the Royal Air Force is not seriously undermanned. Recruitment has improved in general and although there are certain shortages I am glad to say that the recruitment of officers and men has been generally good.
The chief worry concerns the Engineering Branch, but we are doing what we can about this. It is difficult to say whether this satisfactory recruitment will continue because there are certain problems which will inevitably arise. For instance among officers there is now a shortage of pilots under 47 and particularly of pilots aged between 27 to 37. If we look to the future, 1975–78, there will be a high rate of retirement among officers who joined in the last war. This could result in there being a deficit in the late 1970s.
Although this problem lies in the future it is only right that the House should be made aware of it. For the short term, over the next two years at least, apart from the Engineering Branch shortage, we would appear to have relatively few recruiting problems. This is a matter for considerable pleasure.
I would like to deal with other manpower considerations and in particular to say something this year, as my hon. Friend did last year, about the manner in which men and women are introduced into the Service and given training. As the House knows, 1970 marked the full introduction of the officers graduate entry scheme initiated by hon. Members opposite. This allows young men, helped financially by the R.A.F., to go through university and then enter full-time service, via a period of some months at the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell.
The advantage of this, and it is a considerable advantage, is that those who are desirous of following a Service career but at the same time want a university education are now able to do both. Any one suitably qualified, if he wishes, can join the Royal Air Force in this way. Those who have gained degrees without going through this process and who then

wish to join the Royal Air Force can continue to do so through the direct entry scheme. For the foreseeable future only about a third of those who enter full-time commissioned service will do so as graduates.
The remainder of those who receive commissions will do so either from schools, from civilian jobs or promotion from the ranks. The percentage of the latter is considerably higher than I had at first thought. This illustrates something very important—that any man, whatever his background, may know that if he joins the Royal Air Force and if he is good enough, then he will get a commission. Non-graduate officers will not on that account be at any disadvantage during their Service careers and their professional success or failure, like that of graduates, will depend upon their ability and nothing else.
Apart from this scheme in the last year another change was initiated by the last Administration. That is the change in the officer structure of the R.A.F. This had not actually taken place at the time of our last debate. As the House is aware, previously there were two lists of officers for each branch of the Service, the General List and the Supplementary List. The General List comprised full career officers, the Supplementary List those with a more limited career.
Now there is to be one list and officers will no longer enter upon a career to the age of 55 from the beginning of their service. They will now serve initially on an engagement to a mid-career point, which will mean approximately 16 years service or to the age of about 38.
Those who have by this time been promoted to squadron leader, in other words those who have done best in the Service, will automatically have the opportunity of going on until they are 55. Others who have not gained the necessary promotion will be offered retention to the same age with limited opportunities for promotion. I need hardly stress that their service will also be of the greatest value to the R.A.F.
In the General Duties Flying Branch there will be retention of officers as specialist aircrew with enhanced rates of flying pay resulting in a total income comparable with that of a Squadron Leader. It is hoped that this will keep


officers, now leaving in mid-career, longer in the Service.
These changes have resulted from recommendations made by the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Derek Hodgkinson and they have the advantage of delaying selection for full career until officers have been tested by actual service conditions. It is a great advantage to do away with the two distinct categories. It does away with what could be called the ill-feeling which always exists when there are two grades of officers. Both these changes have been welcomed as has the graduate entry scheme. They have resulted in an extension of what I would describe as the "civilianisation" of the R.A.F. By that I mean civilianisation in the social sense. I do not in any way suggest the replacement of servicemen by civilians.
I do not want to criticise in the slightest the past character of the Service which has produced such magnificent generations of officers for whose actions we will always be grateful, but the fact remains that we now have had a long period of peace and in our society the retention of a static military outlook and image would not help us to get the men we must have by voluntary recruitment.
The Royal Air Force has managed to maintain the framework of its discipline and character while at the same time moving away from outmoded military concepts. The history and nature of the R.A.F. has enabled this successful transition to be made. Any visitor to any R.A.F. station cannot fail to be impressed by the extremely interesting jobs being done by members of the Service. Therefore, men who join now are able to convey to others that if they follow them they will be entering a highly technical profession rather than an old-fashioned military career. The modern Services offer jobs and opportunities totally different from those of the old military tradition and there is a wider selection, indeed choice, of occupation than in any industry that I can think of. The enlistment figures show that this fact is increasingly realised.
That brings me to the subject of recruiting. Two years ago it was decided to reorganise the Royal Air Force's recruiting organisation and a network of 27 recruiting areas was created, each con-

trolled by a squadron leader. This has been a success and an R.A.F. presence has been established in heavily populated areas without R.A.F. formations, such as the North-East and the North-West. The value of this is that it allows R.A.F. recruiting officers and men to convey to others throughout the United Kingdom the changed atmosphere of the Service which I have just mentioned.
I turn to a less direct aid to recruitment—what is rather grandiosely called Royal Air Force participation in public events. This has been described by many as a waste of money, but I do not agree. The trouble with this type of publicity is that one can never nail down how effective it is from a recruiting point of view. But one cannot divorce the fact that last year the R.A.F. joined in hundreds of exhibitions, 30 of which were what one might call major, which were seen by millions of people, from the satisfactory recruiting figures.
The R.A.F. is not short of manpower, and this is the best reason for not changing recruiting methods as they are practised today. It would, however, be wrong to leave an impression with the House that the Service is not faced with any problems. As the House knows, the school leaving age is to go up to 16, and, although only a small proportion of R.A.F. recruits is below this age, we are looking very carefully, in conjunction with the Army and the Navy, at the possible repercussions of this development. It is obvious that there must be the closest liaison with schools in the future.
A further factor in our manpower situation is the Donaldson Report, which hon. Members will know provided options for 18-year-old boy recruits to leave the Service after a further three years productive service from the end of training. If these men are to stay in the Air Force they must, quite simply, enjoy themselves. Then not only will they stay but they will tell their friends to join them, which is precisely what we want them to do because it will help recruitment. It is not the slightest good getting people into the Service if we cannot keep them in it. Many of the jobs offered are of the greatest interest. Obviously more interesting opportunities occur after a few years in the Service.
What is equally important—and I stress this—is the conditions under which the men are living now and will live in future. We shall continue to modernise single accommodation by making barrack blocks more comfortable to live in. We plan to spend £250,000 this year on modernisation. In my visits I have been struck by the space which is wasted, frequently when space is very limited, by movable furniture. We are therefore planning to introduce built-in furniture on an approved scale.
In the long term, I should like to see the day when every man in what one might describe as a permanent station will have the option of a single room. A number of alternatives are being examined, among them the idea of single rooms in a 12 to 14 man complex built round a sitting room and other communal facilities, which would enable men to have privacy when they wanted it and company when they wished it. This is essential for the Service man of the future. Moreover, if a shift work system was in operation in a complex like this it would allow men to be undisturbed by that inevitable round-the-clock traffic which plays such a part in Air Force life. I should, however, be wildly optimistic and deceiving the House if I did not say that these improvements will take a lot of time. In the meantime, existing accommodation must be modernised even if it is not yet possible to achieve the ideal of one man per room.
The married quarters situation is improving considerably. When we take over Lossiemouth next year we shall acquire an additional 90 quarters for officers and nearly 600 for airmen. Our programme for married quarters improvements continues, including central heating. I have mentioned details about single room accommodation and other matters because concentration on these issues is of the greatest importance.
Besides living conditions, a side of the Service in which morale is involved is the inevitable separation which occurs when an airman is sent on an unaccompanied tour. The only answer to this problem which will satisfy him is to reduce the time of family separation. Some degree of separation is absolutely unavoidable in Service life but it should be, if possible, kept to the minimum. On

1st January almost all unaccompanied tours of duty were reduced in length by four months—from 13 to nine months. Also, the rules for the payment of separation allowance have been liberalised.
On specialised subjects, something which is unlikely to occur on the same scale again is the repatriation of families from the Far East and the Gulf. There must come a moment when this is a big undertaking and it will mean a considerable change of circumstances for a considerable number of people and it will cause very considerable problems. There will be a reception centre at the United Kingdom terminal to deal with accommodation matters when the families return.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The conditions of service in the Royal Air Force which my hon. Friend is describing are admirable and we must hope that progress will continue in the direction he has indicated. He will, however, understand that they are very different from those which can be achieved in sea-going ships. Does my hon. Friend admit that what he is saying is the strongest possible argument for not going too far and too fast in integrating the three Services in such matters as pay and discipline?

Mr. Lambton: There is a very great difference between the three Services. When this big movement from the Middle East and the Gulf occurs, we shall make every effort to let personnel know as soon as possible what their new appointments will be.
Another thing which I know is of interest to hon. Members is the resettlement of members of the R.A.F. when they re-enter civilian life. Fortunately, this is less of a problem in the Royal Air Force than in the other Services because of the highly skilled nature of much of the work which the Royal Air Force does, which gives men the type of training which enables them to get good jobs on leaving the Service. They have good qualifications and can, if they wish, add to them by attending classes at their own stations for G.C.E. "0" and "A" levels, Ordinary National Certificate, Higher National Certificate and other technical and executive qualifications. These opportunities have a dual purpose. They increase the man's effectiveness when he is in the Service and offer him a better


opportunity when he leaves it. Two years before any man leaves the Service he is interviewed by a resettlement officer who gives him advice.
I turn from these domestic details, which I still think are of great importance, to the subject of reservists, which has been raised frequently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson). It is important to differentiate between the two possible types of air reserves, the flying reserve and the ground reserve. There is a great difference between these two.
I will first say something about the flying reserve and the argument that it would be an effective and economic second force for emergencies. Although I am not optimistic enough to believe that I shall be able to persuade my hon. Friend to my point of view, I will give the House the background on this matter. For a reserve pilot to be useful today he must be efficient and perfectly trained. If not, he is of no value to the Royal Air Force, for the days of the Battle of Britain when a pilot could go into combat after a few hours' flying are gone for ever. For anyone to be an effective air combatant now he has to be master of highly technical machinery. He must be capable of flying aircraft of such an advanced type that his knowledge can be gained only by intensive and continuous training.
I should like the House to see what the creation of an effective flying reserve would entail if the pilots were to be of any value. A reserve pilot would have to belong to one of two categories; the first being that of a fully trained pilot who had become the reserve air combatant after completion of his regular service; the second being that of a part-time trained reservist from civilian life.
The first question we must ask is whether either of these categories could continue to be satisfactorily trained. It takes a long time to produce a pilot able to fly in an emergency. How long can be seen by looking, for example, at the Harrier pilot today. He may have had approximately 100 hours basic flying training and 300 hours or more on aircraft of increased complexity before he is considered to have enough experience to be an effective pilot. On top of this, it is considered absolutely essential that afterwards he should have continuous

practice in the plane which he is to fly operationally. If we look at the two classes from which the reservist could come, it seems unlikely, therefore, that the pilot who had retired, and who today might be comparatively old, would in normal circumstances find the necessary time to train properly while holding down a civilian job. The training of a part-time reservist from civilian life, if he were to be effective, would have to be not dissimilar from that of a regular pilot.
The cost of training a fighter pilot is in the region of £250,000, over 90 per cent. of which is spent in actual flying training. The main costs are of the aircraft he is trained in, its maintenance, the machinery in it and the training equipment. The only conclusion that I can come to on looking at these facts and figures in an unbiased way is that if one were to have an effective reserve with a front line capability one would have to spend about as much money on a reservist as on a fully qualified regular officer. Therefore, it follows that, if more pilots are needed, it would be better to have full-time Royal Air Force officers rather than reservists who cost nearly as much and would not be so good. It is not possible to get effective combat-readiness on the cheap—

Mr. John Wilkinson: I have listened to my hon. Friend with rapt attention and great interest, but I would point out the record of the United States Air National Guard in Vietnam. It appears from the Air Force Magazine and Space Digest of September 1969 that up to that date the Air National Guardsmen flew 30,000 combat sorties, with more than 50,000 combat hours during their 11-month tour of duty in Vietnam. Most of the Guard units consistently led from their wings in sorties, abort and incommission rates, ordnance delivery reliability and other comparative fields. In other words, they were extremely professional and the United States Air Force was dependent on them.

Mr. Lambton: I only hope that some of these reservists were not the people who from time to time bombed their own men in Vietnam. To answer the question seriously, this is a totally different situation, and America has a totally different amount of money to spend on its resources. We have to look carefully at every single penny we spend. For these


reasons I cannot hold out much hope of a flying reserve when resources are so scarce. Apart from that, it is no use training pilots at vast expense when they have not any aeroplanes to fly. I believe that there is a case for more reservists in other categories where training could be much cheaper. A general study is being made on this question and I will keep the House informed of its conclusions later.
I turn from manpower to more technical matters. No speech about the Air Force would be complete—and certainly has not been complete in the past—without some reference to the Meteorological Office, even if every year almost precisely the same optimistic forecast is made about it. It is in the Meteorological Office that much of the scientific effort in the Royal Air Force Department is to be found. During the past year preparations have continued for the arrival of the giant I.B.M. 360/195 computer which is to be at the headquarters at Bracknell later this year. The computer will be a valuable asset both in the preparation of routine weather forecasts and in research. Meterorological research will also benefit considerably by the decision to allocate a Hercules aircraft to the Meteorological Research Flight.
I turn to equipment. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) is not here when I do so, for last time he dismissed my remarks on the subject as "a catalogue of ironmongery". Nevertheless, it is a matter which should be discussed in some detail in this debate. The House will be glad to know that good progress has been made with re-equipment—

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: The Minister must be fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) since the subject was somewhat misplaced in a general defence debate. It is certainly relevant now and should be regarded as a fair point.

Mr. Lambton: I was not trying to be unfair, but it was an equipment debate—or had, by custom, become one. Obviously, it is a custom which the House does not particularly like, and no doubt this point was noted by the authorities this year. The last thing I desire

is to be unfair to the right hon. Member for Dundee, East.
Good progress has been made with the re-equipment of squadrons with Harriers, Phantom FGR2s and Nimrods, and the Bucanneer, which is already in service in Strike Command, has also been deployed to R.A.F. Germany. The Puma, which is the first of the Anglo-French helicopters, has started to enter service with 38 Group, which will add considerably to our helicopter lift capability.
In the supplementary statement on defence last year we pointed out our concern at the shortage of front-line aircraft of all types. We announced that we plan to increase substantially the numbers of the combat version of the Jaguar which is now at an advanced stage of development. I think it would interest my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who is not in the Chamber at present, that we are also looking carefully at the possibility of introducing medium-lift helicopters, although we have reached no decision on this matter. In the longer term we look forward to the M.R.C.A. meeting many of the R.A.F.'s needs in a variety of roles, particularly for strike/attack and reconnaissance, and later for air defence. The initial development phase began last summer and is going ahead satisfactorily. We shall be reviewing the progress of this project with Germany and Italy this summer.
We are also studying ways of meeting our future requirement for training aircraft, which follows the decision announced last year to drop the plan for the Jaguar as an advanced trainer.
I do not think that I can stress too strongly the need for the maximum number of aircraft in the front-line if the flexible response strategy accepted by the Labour Government is to continue to be realistic. The quality of weapons and equipment is also of the greatest importance, and we plan to increase the efficiency of the Phantoms, both in Air Support Command and in Germany, in their conventional rôle.
I have briefly reviewed the position as regards aircraft coming into service in the 1970s, and some of these, particularly the M.R.C.A., will, of course, go on considerably longer in the front line. At the same time I think the House would


be interested to know that we are already giving consideration to our possible future requirements for other aircraft in the 1980s and even later. As hon. Members will know, the Royal Air Force over the years has faced continuously rising costs of aircraft, and this has resulted in a marked restriction of numbers. Arising from this, I am carefully examining the fact that sophisticated devices continue to be invented and each adopted adds greatly to the cost of aircraft.
Looking into the 1980s and beyond, I think it is important for us already to try to plan the shape the Royal Air Force should take, and whether we should rely totally upon a wholly sophisticated air force which, due to costs, will be very small or whether we should aim to increase the numbers by accepting less sophistication in some areas.
Clearly, there are certain roles and functions which require a high degree of sophistication in the aircraft which perform them; lack of sophistication in certain aircraft would deny us the flexibility in the use of our air forces that the strategy of flexible response itself requires. However, there may be cases in the less demanding roles where aircraft with simpler equipment than is sometimes postulated today would function adequately, and where greater numbers would more than offset any lesser operational capability or vulnerability resulting from their greater simplicity.
We have to consider what should be the proper balance in this matter. We must not reach a point where aircraft, though equipped with every conceivable device and near-perfect fighting machines, are because of their high cost so few in number that this in itself is a great weakness.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Would my hon. Friend add that these very same factors can have the effect of preventing such aircraft having any market overseas, because what is too complex for us will be very much too complex for many of our customers?

Mr. Lambton: That is a rather different question. I am dealing with the tactical strength and weakness and the sort of balance we should aim to achieve. This whole problem must be considered in the allied as well as in the national

context, but at a time when rapid technological advances and rising prices keep pace with each other, it is more than ever important that there should be some attempt to try to get the balance right.
Finally, I should like to say something about the training effort required if the R.A.F. is to use its modern weapons effectively. I spoke earlier about the whole question of the expense of reserves due to the great expense of training and equipment, and it is likely that the cost of training for the Armed Forces will go on taking a significant proportion of the defence budget. This is unavoidable and has been the experience of any Minister who has been in my position.
But it is very important to consider whether it is possible to save money anywhere. Specific studies both of flying and of ground training are, therefore, being carried out, and with a view to reducing expenditure a series of computer models are planned to investigate the extent to which parts of the flying training programme can be replaced by experience on aircraft simulators. I believe that we should make the greatest possible use of simulators. They can certainly never replace flying experience, but it may be possible to reduce the costs of training some air personnel. If this is possible, it would be a significant saving. Nevertheless, no matter how many advances are made in what I might call synthetic training, the fact remains that a large proportion of actual training will have to be done in the air. To pretend otherwise would be merely optimistic.
Two of these methods of training are of special concern to the House because they relate to the United Kingdom. Pilots and aircrews must train all the time, but one cannot train aircrews without two things. One is the use of air weapon ranges and the other is low-level flying training. This without doubt, as many of us know in our constituencies, causes great inconvenience and concern to many members of the public. The House knows that every possible step is taken to minimise annoyance, that no sortie is taken without specific authority, that all the routes are chosen with the greatest care and that the whole area of operation is frequently reviewed. The flying which is undertaken represents the minimum esential to maintain the pilots at a


high level of proficiency. But there is no doubt that, despite all these precautions, this low flying causes the greatest irritation in many areas. I have looked most carefully into this matter, and it seems that there are only three things that can effectively be done to cure it: first, to invent a silent aeroplane, which seems a long way off; second, to increase the size of this country; third, to reduce drastically the population of this country. None of those courses is in any degree practical, and so I do not think that we can do anything but continue to watch this kind of training with the greatest care.
Luckily, there are other types of training which cause less irritation. The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) spoke last year about the vigilance with which we guard our air space, and this in itself makes for very good training indeed. We have also recently had two large-scale exercises which deserve some mention, for they demonstrated the Services' increasing co-operational capabilities. The first was that of the Bersatu Padu last year in the Malaysian Peninsula, an exercise noteworthy for two things: first, the very successful liaison which it showed to exist between the forces of Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom, and, second, the fact that this exercise was conceived and planned by the previous Administration to prove that they could fulfil the commitments which they retained when announcing the United Kingdom's withdrawal from South-East Asia. However, by the time the exercise was taking place hon. Gentlemen opposite were bitterly criticising us for planning to keep a limited presence in an area which they had been at great pains to show they could reinforce from the United Kingdom.
The second recent major exercise was Limejug, in the Mediterranean. The chief value of this was the co-operation between the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. It enabled both Services to work closely together, and perhaps for the first time, and for once, the joint report—one is particularly suspicious of joint reports—was accurate when it said that the exercise had added greatly to the trust, understanding and good will between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. I think that this kind of co-

operational exercise is of the greatest value.
I hope that in the survey which I have undertaken I have made hon. Members aware of some of our chief concerns today.
In conclusion, it is right that I should say a word about the fundamental purpose of the Royal Air Force. It is a force which adds considerably to the deterrent in Europe, and its powers will be increased with the completion of the build-up of Harriers and Phantoms, and the entry into service of Jaguars and, later, M.R.C.A.s. It is not a force of aggression. We have no territorial ambitions anywhere in the world. It is purely a deterrent force whose use in action we all hope will never be necessary, but I think that it would be wrong for the House to close its eyes to events in Europe where the Soviet Union has increased its defence expenditure by about 30 per cent. in the last five years.
It has been argued in this House that the balance of conventional power is not increasingly favourably inclined to the Soviet bloc. I do not think that that case bears any weight. One has only to look at the Soviet forces which exist, not only on the Western front, but also on the flanks and in reserve, to see that vast numbers of men and machines, greatly outnumbering those in N.A.T.O., could be brought into the front line in a comparatively short time.
That is the situation today. What the position will be in the future, time will tell, but I do not think that we should shut our eyes to the fact that the U.S. is spending about 8 per cent. to 9 per cent. of its gross national product on defence without being engaged in a war. We are spending about 5½ per cent. on defence in this country, and in N.A.T.O. Europe about 4 per cent.
I think that those figures speak for themselves, but the fact is that in 1967 we accepted a policy of flexible response, and this justifies every penny that has been spent on the Royal Air Force. What we have to do is to try to ensure that every penny we spend is well spent and enables us to give the maximum support to N.A.T.O.
To conclude, I should like to say, as the right hon. Gentleman did last year, how struck I have been by the high


morale and professionalism displayed at every level in the Service. I believe that this is reflected in the generally satisfactory recruiting picture. The Service today is worthy, and considers itself worthy, of its own high traditions.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I am glad that the Minister was able to endorse what I said last year about the morale of the Royal Air Force, and that he found the Service in good shape when he took office. I was not able to follow all the Minister's remarks, especially when he compared our position with that of the United States, and said that that country had not been involved in a war. I thought that it had been very much involved during the last few years.

Mr. Lambton: I meant to say the U.S.S.R.

Mr. Morris: I misunderstood the Minister.
It was my pleasure and privilege on two occasions to introduce the Air Estimates to the House. This is an important day for the Royal Air Force. So many sections of it deserve, and indeed demand, to be mentioned in a debate of this kind that the Minister's greatest job is to edit contributions from all sections of the Service, and I compliment him on the way that he has done so this afternoon.
Since the last Defence White Paper we have had other statements about the Government's defence policy, and only a few days before the recess the Government issued an additional White Paper on "Organisation for Defence Procurement and Civil Aerospace", which will undoubtedly affect the Royal Air Force to a large extent. I shall not debate that issue on this occasion, but I hope that we shall return to it when we debate the Transfer of Functions Order.
Last year the theme of my speech was vigilance and service-vigilant in the sense of the Royal Air Force being ever-watchful, ever-ready to protect this nation, and the interests of this nation, in its daily round of peacetime activities and operations, and service in the sense of being one of our great armed forces giving service to the community in this country and indeed to the whole world as occasion demanded.
Last year I had the privilege of listing some of the activities and the nature of the relief and assistance which the Royal Air Force had rendered in this country and abroad wherever it was needed. This year the White Paper sets out some of the great acts of service which the Royal Air Force has carried out. There was the assistance rendered by the Royal Air Force at the end of hostilities in Nigeria, Pakistan, Jordan and Tunisia, to name only a few. I join in the tributes paid to the teamwork involved in the Royal Air Force in carrying out these functions so effectively. I pay tribute to those at the highest level, charged with carrying out the decisions of the Government, as well as to those at the lowest level who ensure that the machines are in good order so that men can go out in difficult circumstances to bring help wherever it is needed. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the Royal Air Force in that context.
The Government have substantially continued the previous Government's policy with regard to the Royal Air Force. The policy of rationalisation has gone on, and it is a little odd, when the Estimates are presented this year, to recall the criticisms made by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), who is not here today—

Mr. Victor Goodhew: He is.

Mr. Morris: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I welcome his presence in the Chamber. We had to endure the hon. Gentleman's criticisms for many a long year, and I recall, too, the present Minister of Aviation Supply referring to the "intolerable burden placed on the Royal Air Force by the Labour Government". The right hon. Gentleman stressed the point that the "air defences of this country gave grounds for considerable anxiety". Bearing in mind those statements, one might have expected, if there was any foundation for them, to have seen a major departure in this Government's policy for the Royal Air Force.
After all the wringing of hands and all the moaning we heard year after year, in money terms—this is what matters—the position of the R.A.F. remains the same.
I noted the Under-Secretary's words when he said that we have to look very


carefully at every single penny we have to spend and that resources are scarce. The position remains in 1971 as it was in 1970. If our stewardship was so bad, if the criticism made by the party opposite, in Opposition, was well placed, then, despite the fact that the gestation period for equipment is very long indeed, if we had been so wholly wrong one might have expected some indication of a change of policy, some funding of new equipment, some departing from the way we had provided either by new equipment or ordering of increased numbers. But in the White Paper one will not see any major or significant departure—indeed any change at all—save in two instances to which I shall come later. The position for the R.A.F. remains basically the same, and the criticisms of the past sound very hollow when the Under-Secretary has to introduce the Estimates for the R.A.F. today.
There are two differences, though they hardly bring a great deal of comfort to those who criticised us in the past. The first is that, after 1971, a detachment of Nimrods is to go to the Far East for maritime reconnaisance purposes and also some Whirlwind helicopters. We have not been told of how many the detachment will consist or how long the unit will stay there. Indeed, we have not been told how it will carry out its purposes or how it will be concerted with the defences of the Far East nations when they have carried out whatever reconnaisance they can over a very wide area.
The basic problem, having regard to the strictures uttered and the criticisms made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite in Opposition, is whether, in the context of the defence of Europe, which is our priority, we can afford to allow these Ninrods to go to the Far East.
Last year the right hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), commenting from this side of the House on the suggestion that the Nirod might be used for an airborne early warning role, welcomed this proposal because, he said, of the "pitifully small order" for the Nimrod. If the order that had been placed for the Nimrod was regarded by the party opposite in Opposition as pitifully small, perhaps we might be told

whether, in the context of sending some of these valuable aircraft to the Far East, there has been any increase in the numbers involved. I sense the answer will be that the order remains unchanged. There is no new money for the Air Force in these estimates.
The second difference is the change from the intention of using one version of the Jaguar for training, save for a small number which will be needed, as I understand it, for conversion. This will come into effect when the Gnat and the Hunter have to be replaced.
I welcome the increase in the four squadrons of Jaguars which will be available for the operational front line. However, that can be only limited comfort for the Royal Air Force in that they come from within the total buy which had been authorised by the previous Government. In effect, it means more one-seater and less two-seater Jaguars. This is small comfort, for whatever it is worth. Perhaps we can be told when their effect will be felt on the operational front line.
Concerning the new trainer about which we have heard so much in a rough and general outline since last October, what progress has been made? The Minister dismissed this subject today in half a sentence. When will the new trainer come in? Will it be produced alone in this country, in alliance or in concert with our allies, or shall we buy it off the shelf from the United States? I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will recall, every time I came to the House to announce any foreign buy, the trenchant criticisms which were made because it was a foreign buy. Perhaps we may be told in what context the plans for the new trainer are advanced. Does this lead to new money for Royal Air Force equipment, or does the new trainer, which is to be provided, come from the total of the money which has been authorised for equipment? Does it mean that other projects will be moved slightly to the right and that there will be no real increase in the money which has been provided for equipment for the R.A.F.?
I turn now to the availability of aircraft and the need to service and to refurbish engines from time to time. One matter which caused me a great deal of concern in my last few months in office


was the time that it took to refurbish and service engines, particularly of aircraft of the front line. I have forgotten the period involved for engines to be taken from Germany to this country, to go on the production line, to be refurbished, and to go back. I think that it was about four or five months. It was not only the time lost on the factory floor—perhaps the Minister will say something about this—but the time taken in the pure logistic problem of removing the engines from the operational sphere, bringing them to the base factory, and taking them back again. I hope that the position has improved since my day. I caused many inquiries to be made. This is a matter in which real progress can be made by strong Ministerial action, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will carry out if he thinks it right, to ensure that there is an increase in the availability of aircraft by cutting some of the corners in what I regarded as the intolerable time taken to make engines available and to have the greatest possible number of aircraft available. Although the Minister cannot comment about it today, perhaps he wil consider it in due course.
I endorse the Under-Secretary's words about training being very costly. Having regard to the suggestions made in all honesty by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) I do not think that, in an era of highly sophisticated aircraft, which involve continuous and expensive training—it costs about £250,000 to train pilots for some of the more sophisticated aircraft—these highly professional duties can be undertaken by amateurs, half-trained or, indeed, not full-time people. I endorse the analysis given to the House by the Minister.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I should point out that the Israelis, the Swiss, the Canadians and the South Africans manage. In particular, the Swiss are extremely careful in the allocation and disposition of their defence budget and it is extremely cost-effective. The whole exercise is one of cost-effectiveness, not of increasing defence costs.

Mr. Morris: From the point of view of operational efficiency and the money involved, which the Under-Secretary set out, in my considered view this is certainly not on. The conditions are wholly different from some of the matters set

out in the articles written by the hon. Member for Bradford, West, which I have read, in which he referred to the era of Trenchard. These are some of the examples which he gave. One was living in a different era when talking of Spitfires and less sophisticated aircraft. The highly sophisticated aircraft with which the Royal Air Force has to deal today and the immense amount of money involved in training and the continuity of training of pilots today—

Mr. Wilkinson: Mr. Wilkinson rose—

Mr. Morris: Perhaps in due course the hon. Gentleman will make his own comments on these matters. We shall be very interested to hear him.
The position as I see it is that one of the anxieties of the past—perhaps the Under-Secretary will comment on this today—is the need to give continuity of training to our own young regular pilots. There are bound to be gaps in continuity when these highly-trained young men must kick their heels and do a host of other jobs, possibly because aircraft are not available to ensure that they move smoothly from one type of aircraft training to another.
This may represent the main problem which the R.A.F. will have to face in future. Highly skilled young men of this kind should be given as much continuity as possible, but because of lack of aircraft from time to time, they may have to be given other work. I therefore welcomed the Under-Secretary's comments about simulators. I have seen them in action and the necessary money should be made available to provide them in the numbers required.
Every step should be taken to see that there is the greatest availability of aircraft for training. There should be the minimum amount of break in continuity for the training of these highly-skilled young men. Only by this means shall we ensure that they do not lose heart. I appreciate that a host of other duties will have to be undertaken by them and that some of these duties will be good for them. These men should be trained as fully and effectively as possible on what are extremely highly sophisticated machines.
When in office, I spent much of my time —my chief advisers spent much more of their time—dealing with the multi-rôle


combat aircraft, the M.R.C.A. and particularly with the planning and organisation of this enormous joint effort with Germany and Italy. I was cheered to see on television the other night a description of some of the work that is currently going on in Munich.
I regard the M.R.C.A. as one of the most, if not the most, significant efforts ever undertaken for the joint provisioning of equipment for the defence needs of Europe. It represents a major practical step to meet the common needs of Europe in an orderly way, using the resources of the three nations concerned to the maximum. In my view, only by co-operation of this type can we have the sort of cost-effectiveness that will produce a useful aircraft to provide for our common needs.
There were a host of problems to be faced in setting up the organisation leading to the M.R.C.A. Many discussions took place between the nations concerned, and since then there has been the large problem, discussed in the House on many occasions, of Rolls-Royce. I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister will say whether other countries are content and satisfied with the arrangements that the Government have made for Rolls-Royce and if they consider that their needs will be met by these arrangements.
I suggest that at least two lessons can be learnt from the planning that went into the M.R.C.A. Hon. Members may recall the Questions which I had to answer in the House from hon. Members who wanted me to ensure that Britain s share of production would be proper and fair. Questions of this kind are always asked when great firms and nations are involved in joint efforts of this type. We are anxious to ensure that we get a fair crack of the whip, and the same applies to the other parties in other countries. I believe that the assurances which we gave at that time have proved to be reasonably satisfactory.
Thus, the first lesson to be learned is that if some of these great firms throughout Europe were part and parcel of one another—if they held joint equities and were tied in this and other ways—some of the problems concerning the share-out in producing these highly expensive articles would be lessened. I hope that gradually the great commer-

cial firms in this country and in other parts of Europe—I have particularly in mind the great concerns which are involved in the armaments sphere—will note the success of the M.R.C.A. venture and will come closer together in an effort to avoid some of the problems that have arisen in the past.
The second lesson to be learnt is the avoidance of some of the difficulties which arose over the needs of the various general staffs in this country, in Germany, Italy and in the other nations that were involved at an earlier stage. The general staffs should also come together at the earliest possible moment in the planning of a venture such as the M.R.C.A. It is a tribute to the general staffs of the three nations concerned that they were able to agree common requirements. I hope that, in other arms procurement ventures, they will come together at an earlier stage.
In hoping that all steps will be taken by the Department to see that the general staffs come together earlier, I must comment that a problem which is likely to arise in, say, the '80s—it does not affect the R.A.F. but it is worth putting on the record—will be the provision of a common tank for Europe. The defence needs of our European partners are very similar to ours and the tactical views held on the mainland of Europe are in many way not always the same as ours. Considering the expense involved in the M.R.C.A., we must agree on common specifications for the provision of other common weapons.
We have not been given a full statement since last July on the development of the M.R.C.A. I appreciate that other matters have intervened, and while I hope the Minister will say when a statement is likely to be made, I regretted that the Under-Secretary did not deal at considerable length with this matter. When is a statement likely to be made to the House giving details of the progress made with the M.R.C.A. since last July?
I wish to make that perfectly clear as I turn to the question of sales to overseas' customers that the R.A.F. has a record of helpfulness in the provision of aircraft and personnel. However, from time to time there are clashes between the immediate needs of a single Service, be it the R.A.F. or one of the others, and the needs of those responsible for sales.
Each Service wants its new equipment now or, better still, last week. In the same way, those responsible for sales want to provide the equipment for their overseas' customers at the earliest possible moment. I mean no disrespect to the Under-Secretary when I say that charged, as he is, with responsibility for one Service, it is vital that, when there are clashes in a field like sales, an across-the-board Minister can take a more objective view of needs than might be taken by a Minister who is primarily concerned with the needs of one Service.
I hope that the machinery in the Ministry of Defence is such that where there is a clash of view over the needs of a single Service compared with the needs of overseas customers—clashes of this kind have occurred in the past and they will no doubt occur again—it can be referred to an across-the-board Minister in other words, that arrangements prevail in the Ministry to enable this type of general examination of the problem to be made.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): The right hon. Gentleman makes a completely valid point. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement and the Minister of State for Defence both have across-the-board responsibilities. Only recently the R.A.F. agreed, indeed suggested, the postponement of some equipment of a particularly valuable kind to assist sales overseas. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman is speaking of a problem, but it is one of which the R.A.F. is not only aware but is anxious to assist to overcome.

Mr. Morris: I am glad to hear that. I began my remarks on this matter by saying that the R.A.F. had a record of helpfulness in the provision of aircraft and personnel. I accept that the R.A.F. has made both available for, for example, training. However, clashes of view arise. Such instances have occurred and they are bound to arise again. It is difficult for a Minister who is responsible for a single Service to take an across-the-board view, which makes it vital to have a Minister to whom such a clash can be referred.

Mr. Onslow: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it might be helpful on another occasion if the Defence White Paper included information similar to that

dealing with the disposal of ships? I refer to aircraft which are made available, after refurbuishment, for disposal to overseas air forces. We might find that is much money is to be derived from these sales as from selling, for example, coastal minesweepers.

Mr. Morris: I have never understood the historical difference between giving total disposal figures for ships and aircraft. I recall being questioned on many occasion by hon. Members on this subject, but for historical reasons I was not able to give aircraft figures. The answer I was briefed to give was that real security problems were involved. The policy, which has not changed, is that one does not generally give details of overseas sales, because some overseas customers are hesitant about their needs becoming known by the outside world. This is a matter which is entirely within the Government's hands, but the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is right to say that there is a disparity between the large amount that the Navy reveals and the much smaller amount revealed by the other Services.
I welcome the remarks made by the hon. Member for Woking about sophisticated aircraft. One of the tragedies of the past has been that decisions have sometimes been taken to stop the production of comparatively simple aircraft, which are frequently the types of aircraft so much in demand by so many countries. With hindsight I regard this as a tragedy.
This is one reason why, when British industry receives an order for a new aircraft, it should also make provision for overseas sales, but it does not do this as a matter of practice. This is where the clash occurs between the immediate needs of the Air Force when it has placed a firm order, if an overseas customer suddenly appears on the scene: the Air Force has to be robbed so that the needs of the overseas customer can be met. The aircraft industry should provide for overseas sales in the same way as the motor car industry does and not meet the needs of overseas customers at the expense of an existing and established home customer.
Large amounts of money are involved in the training of pilots for overseas customers. A figure of £¼ million has been mentioned as being involved in the training of some pilots. Much smaller amounts


are involved in training some of the pilots for the planes that we sell overseas, but frequently £50,000 to £100,000 a pilot is involved. Such sums frighten an overseas customer, even though he will be paying a much greater sum for the aircraft.
In view of the use of simulators, I hope that everything possible will be done to keep down the cost of training for overseas customers; because this high cost sticks out like a sore thumb. The sums, though large in themselves, are admittedly smaller when compared with the cost of the aircraft purchased, but they are very high indeed in comparison with the sums charged by other countries which have found a way of placing the charge on their Government's central accounts so that the customer is not unduly frightened at the expense of training.
I welcome the remarks that the Under-Secretary made about recruiting. Last year I said this:
Recruitment to the Royal Air Force continues to provide a challenge for everyone concerned with it.
This is certainly true in branches such as the engineering branches, the medical branches, and one or two others. Last year I was able to say this:
Yet I am happy to say that there were distinct signs of improvements last year, especially towards the end, and that the impetus seems to be maintaining itself this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 50–1.]
That prophecy seems to have been justified. We have seen the figures in the White Paper. The number of cadets at university has risen from 266 to 350. In the first nine months the number of direct graduates has risen from 51 to 85 and the total expected for last year will be 115 compared with 63. There is an increased interest in other entry to the commissioned Service and a 12 per cent. increase in recruitment of other ranks. These are significant figures.
We commend those who have taken part in the recruiting campaign. There will be added impetus this year in that the pay scale for single men and the concept of the military salary introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) became fully effective on 1st April of this year.
The latest ghastly unemployment figures were published today. The tragedy now facing us all is that there is a new recruiting officer and we do not know what effect this will have on recruiting.
I hope that the Minister will examine the balance within the Air Force. I was glad to hear his remarks about age and other matters. Given that more recruits are coming forward and that the trend will continue, I hope that he will examine the tasks and the age structure of the general duties branch.
As to general equipment, the Minister mentioned the Puma. Perhaps in the wind-up speech we can be given a fuller picture about the other helicopter projects with France. The Rapier is not a weapon for the Air Force, but the Air Force has a great interest in it in that one of its major roles will be the protection of our airfields. We hope that the Minister can assure us that good progress is being made in the development and production of this weapon.
I have been at the receiving end and also at the complaining end of representations about low flying. The assurances given by the Minister in this regard were worth while. I hope that every effort will he made to keep low flying to a minimum in the future as in the past, that warnings will be given wherever possible, and that the closest possible liaison will be maintained with local authorities and local inhabitants in areas where low flying is to take place.
At the beginning of the year I had correspondence with the Under-Secretary. It was odd that two months later the Ministry of Aviation Supply, perhaps without the knowledge of the Air Force, announced a programme of low flying in my constituency. This caused great concern. I hope that the division between the two Ministries will no longer obtain now that there has been a transfer of functions.
Within our resources the Royal Air Force has excellent aircraft which have either recently entered service or which are coming into service. Plans are well advanced for their replacement in the latter part of this decade. In practical terms this replacement is the greatest step in the fusion of Europe's defence. I look forward to 1976 and the years thereafter when we shall see the product of a


great deal of work which has been put in to bring these aircraft to an operational state, because that is the end project of the efforts of so many people.
I join in the tribute which has been paid to the service and vigilance of the Royal Air Force, which is ever ready to serve humanity in every part of the globe and which regards no task as too challenging if human resources and ingenuity can enable it to be tackled, and which is ever vigilant night and day in the defence of Britain and her interests. I am sure that the whole House will join me in commending the Royal Air Force for the tasks it has carried out in years gone by, particularly last year, tasks well and truly performed.

5.28 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The debate is about the bits and the pieces of one Service. It is not a general strategic debate. I shall speak briefly about, first, procurement, next about the deployment of the Royal Air Force, and finally about recruitment.
As to procurement, I was glad to hear the Minister's remarks about the M.R.C.A., and I hope that the project will be very successful. If it is not successful, if it hits trouble in any way, I hope that the Government will resolve not to try any more international ventures. The A.F.V.G. came to nought. The F111 took off only because of the earth's curvature, as the pilot said. I believe that the difficulties of technology added to the difficulties of achieving international agreement in matters of this sort make it likely that such projects will be a bad compromise designwise, and will always be so late that they miss the bus for export sales. Unless the M.R.C.A. is a resounding success, let us always go it alone in future. I suspect that even in this period of history when "international co-operation" is on everybody's lips, production of our own primary defensive weapons should be kept in our own hands in this country. Apart from anything else, we owe it to the British aircraft industry that as much as possible of defence procurement should be at home.
Next, on the matter of the deployment of the Royal Air Force, I would hesitate to describe my noble Friend the Minister of State as an ostrich, but I believe that he has inherited a Department whose

head is firmly buried in the N.A.T.O. sands. I am delighted that the Government have carried out their pledge so promptly and successfully to keep a presence east of Suez, and that the five-Power meeting in London last week made such excellent progress, but the threat is not localised in Singapore or Malaysia or even at the Cape. The threat is one which President Kennedy described as being nibbled to death in conditions of nuclear stalemate. This threat of being nibbled to death is world wide; it is not only in Europe.
The most obvious development or change in recent years in the threat which faces us is the growth of Soviet naval power and their centrally-directed merchant fleet. This, of course, is a worldwide threat. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to have the means of effective surveillance of our sea trade routes; and, indeed, I believe that our presence east of Suez is a nonsense unless there is some evidence of our intention and ability to protect the trade routes of a very large area, to protect the oil from the Gulf and our valuable trade with Australia and New Zealand.
This means shipborne aircraft in some shape or form. We are told that this in future is to be a task for the Royal Air Force, and I do not complain about this so long as the Royal Air Force does it. I am not arguing for a dark blue Fleet Air Arm today, but I am arguing that the Government should show a lot more evidence of their understanding of the importance of shipborne aircraft. One single aircraft carrier, the "Ark Royal", is absolutely inadequate. There is no possible sense in saying that the Fleet Air Arm will still go on, that it will have twopenny-halfpenny fiddling helicopters operating from frigates. I realise that the Government have got a sticky inheritance in this matter, but I do not want to go into that today. I merely make the basic point that the deployment of the Royal Air Force, if it is to have the main maritime task, must include shipborne aircraft.
Nimrods were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris). It was interesting to hear him make the point that we should spend more on defence and that we should have more Nimrods. I agree. Nimrods are necessary to fly from South Africa and


from Singapore. Co-operation with the Royal Australian Navy westwards from Fremantle and into the Indian Ocean is fine.
Having during the period of the last Government often argued for smaller and less sophisticated aircraft carriers, I am pleased to see in the Defence Estimates this year that the defence staff behind the scenes have apparently been clever and that the command cruiser is a very thinly disguised carrier. I should like to see the Government pay more attention to the way in which the shipborne aircraft are to be manned and handled. The Minister of State, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, has given extremely evasive answers, and so have his Ministerial colleagues, on the question of how shipborne aircraft are to be flown, manned and serviced. If the Royal Air Force is to do it, firm plans and commitments are required, and the Government should make the importance of this task clear for all to see, both in the Services and among the public at large.
I should like to see more urgency in the production of the through-deck cruiser. The White Paper says that work continues on the design of this through-deck cruiser. This is much the same as was stated in the 1970 White Paper. We would like to see the Government get their finger out about this.
I should like much more recognition by the Government of the importance of the use of the Harrier at sea. I think it was 10 years ago this summer that I went to Farnborough and had the extraordinary sight of a jet aircraft taking off vertically and suddenly shooting forwards. This was a most amazing sight. I went away into the tent thinking that I must take more water with in in future. However, the development of this principle has been catastrophically slow. The last time my right hon. Friend spoke about this he said that tests continued for the use of this aircraft at sea. It is obvious that the Harrier is God's gift to naval aviation and to shipborne aviation. A great deal more urge is needed behind this project.

Lord Balniel: I also, as a layman, had the same feeling that the period of development of the Harrier seemed to have taken an extremely long time. My hon. and gallant Friend has raised this

matter in the House before, and immediately after he raised it I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy to make inquiries to assure himself that progress was being pursued as rapidly as possible. I am assured that it is the case. I am also visiting "Ark Royal" later this week to see evaluation trials proceed. The point that my hon. and gallant Friend makes is valid, but I assure him that the information I have is that the trials are proceeding as rapidly as possible.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am glad to have that assurance. I hope that if the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to "Ark Royal" is as hopeful as I imagine it will be, he will come back and, together with the Secretary of State, go to the Cabinet and, say, "We could go faster with this if we had more money." They should not be ashamed to do so. The Government must not be afraid to spend more to get ahead faster with the whole question of the surveillance of the trade routes. It should be unnecessary in the House to make the point all over again how completely dependent we are in peace, in time of threat or in war, upon the trade and the supplies which are brought to these islands by sea.
I hope that in the wind-up speech we can have a statement about the retirement or the resignation of the Commander-in-Chief, Western Fleet, Admiral Sir William O'Brien, if only to scotch the rumour at the weekend that his departure might have been associated with dissatisfaction over the maritime air effort which is available. I do not want to start a canard about this. I remember the occasion, during the period of the previous Government, when one of the "top brass" of the Royal Navy resigned, namely, Admiral Sir David Luce. It was brushed off by the then Government Front Bench with, I thought, just a wave of the hand, but when a man at the top of his career resigns, it is obviously for some deep and fundamental reason. I hope that I am wrong in the present case and it was merely that Admiral O'Brien was reaching the end of his career in the perfectly normal course. I hope that that is right, but it would, perhaps, scotch some misunderstandings which have been current if the Minister could say so in winding up the debate.
Now, the question of recruiting. My hon. Friend gave some interesting figures about Service conditions, accommodation, separation and so on. May we be told a little about the results so far of the new military salary introduced by the previous Government for all three Services? Specifically, could the House be told the pay and allowances of a squadron leader flying a VC10 of the Royal Air Force from Britain to Singapore, and how his total emoluments compare with the salary of a B.O.A.C. captain flying the same aircraft on the same route to Singapore, with the same load, the only difference being that the passengers sit in backward-facing seats?
Manpower is the greatest single factor in the Royal Air Force, just as it is in the other two Services. I disagree somewhat with the Opposition Front Bench about the degree of Service integration which is possible. I believe it to be extremely important that the three Services retain their own identity. There should be common operational control, of course—that is agreed on both sides —but I think it wrong to take that process a stage further to the point where one merges or mixes the identity of one Service with another. They will always he different, and I was glad to hear my hon. Friend admit today, in reply to a question from me, that, of course, the three Services are different.
I come now to one expedient which I propose for obtaining additional recruits, not only to the Royal Air Force but to the other two Services as well. When the school leaving age is raised to 16, there will be many boys who do not wish to do the additional year at school. Some of the more mature will want to go out into the world, and, if they stay on at school, they will be bored and they will interrupt the learning of the other pupils. I suggest, therefore, that we should allow boys to volunteer for the Royal Air Force, or for the other two Services, at the age of 15. This could be one of the very few ways—perhaps the only way—in which they could leave school before the age of 16.
I emphasise that these boys would he volunteers. They would go into the Service, and in the Service they would continue their education simultaneously with their Service training. If they did not

like Service life, they could escape at 18 under the Donaldson scheme which we recently debated. The Service, whichever it was, would have three years to influence them, to put the Service fingerprint on their minds, so to speak. If the Services cannot persuade such young men of the value of Service life in those three years, three impressionable years, I do not believe that they will ever be able to do it.
I put it to the Minister, also, that this idea should be attractive to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. It would reduce overcrowding in schools when the leaving age is raised, it would reduce the cost of raising the age, and it would remove the embarrassment of having unwilling pupils in many of our classrooms. So everybody should be happy, and I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to this idea.
Now, one other question on recruiting. May we be told how many local authorities refuse to allow careers teams to visit their areas? I find it extraordinary that a large number of local authorities, so I understand, still refuse to allow such visits, and I think that it might be of some value to enumerate them, preferably by publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list showing which those local authorities are. If they feel as strongly as that about it, presumably they would not object to having their names published in that way.
I was very glad to hear the Minister speak in his peroration about the interest which Service life can provide. There is no doubt about it. For myself, I can only say—not from a single-Service point of view—that if I had 10 sons and they all wanted to go into the Royal Air Force, I should be more than delighted.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Whatever other result it may have, this debate at least ought to unite us all in a renewed belief in the need for a Select Committee on Defence. It may seem curious that a subject of such importance should, apparently, attract so few participants—no Liberals at all, only three on the Opposition benches at the moment, though twice that number on the Government side—but there may well be another and more respectable reason for


the thin attendance than the fact that this is the first day back.
By its very nature, this subject requires a kind of treatment different from that which it is possible to give to it in formal exchanges across the Floor in debate. Anyone who starts to prepare a speech for an occasion such as this inevitably confronts the problem that there is far too much to be said, and that speeches, if they are really to cover all the points of interest to those of us who specialise in defence matters, would be intolerably long. Once again, therefore, I renew the plea that the question of a Select Committee on Defence be given serious consideration, particularly as there seems to be no shortage of matters which might otherwise occupy the time of the House on the Floor.
I shall briefly touch on a theme which has emerged from the speeches so far, straying from it no further than my natural digressions lead me. I refer to the role of the Royal Air Force as a customer. It is easy to see this if one reads the Defence White Paper, because one finds there—to use an Irishism—a couple of omissions which in themselves are interesting enough. I have read this White Paper, Cmnd. 4592, from cover to cover and I find nothing in it about the "Pembroke". I do not regret this for a moment. I think that the best thing to do is to say nothing about the "Pembroke". I say that although at this moment there sits on the Opposition Front Bench the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) who was responsible for the decision that the "Pembroke" should be resparred and taken back into service, instead of using the "Islander". Rhetorically, I have asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell me of any decision ever made more foolish than that. I shall not embarrass him by pressing for an answer this afternoon, though I am bound to admit that to say nothing about the "Pembroke" was to carry decency to the extreme.
I believe that the absence of the Islander from the Royal Air Force equipment pack is absolutely inexplicable and inexcusable, and a major barrier to sales prospects to military forces overseas. If reticence about the Pembroke can be

maintained in future years, I hope, on the other hand, that we shall find something about the Islander in next year's White Paper.
The other omission is the Chinook, the American helicopter which was ordered and then cancelled—and which may, I suppose, have to be un-cancelled, though whether we can get the cancellation payments back I do not quite know. I mention this because there is nothing in the White Paper on the whole question of tactical support for the Harrier. I shall return to this later, but what I want to show in pinpointing both these cases is that it might be very much to our benefit if we were to consider the R.A.F. as a customer rather more consistently and in greater depth than hitherto.
The American Starfighters are a classic case in point when we talk about complexity as a barrier to sales. Although large numbers were sold it was the complex one which the Germans thought they could maintain and found they could not which has had all the tragedies associated with it. The other Starfighters, which are relatively simple beasts, have been very satisfactory equipment to the services which have taken them on.
Rather than dwell as I perhaps would have liked on the invaluable role of the R.A.F. in the past year in relief in Pakistan, Jordan and Nigeria, I want to concentrate on the question of the R.A.F. as a customer. May I say first that I wonder whether official policy is right in so far as it appears to be having the effect of taking work away from civilian industry and concentrating it in Defence Department hands. I should be much obliged if Ministers would look at this matter, because if there is, as I believe there is, a need for work to be provided in a number of cases where it is short now, I think that it is more likely to be outside, in the civilian sector, than inside in the defence sector. The matter is causing concern. There is a fear in industry that work is being put into the defence sector which could be as well done in industry. It may be that the answer is that industry might do it more expensively or more slowly. If that is so, those are valid arguments, but let us at least look at the question.
A major point in our whole economic effort now is the M.R.C.A., the major


European collaborative project, bigger even than Concorde. I believe that it is of the greatest importance in the long run, and I think that the right hon. Member for Aberavon was right in some of his comments about it. I believe that the House would welcome more information as soon as this can be made available. I understand that there are certain checks which are to be made in the spring and summer, and that until they have been successfully passed it is difficult to be very informative about the aircraft. But as soon as it is possible for something definite to be said I hope that the House can be informed, because there is concern about the project on a number of scores. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) will probably speak about this a little later, but I am very worried about the avionics side. I hear it said that British industry is losing out badly, that, for obscure reasons, decisions are being taken in the allocation of work between the firms of the contracting countries, and even within the avionics industry in this country, which may be very damaging in their long-term consequences.
There is also an area of concern centreing around the Rolls-Royce engine, not so much because of the likelihood that the RB 119 will not do what it is supposed to do, as because of the extent to which the design teams of Rolls-Royce are really concentrating on the problems of an engine which is not all that much dissimilar to the RB 211, although it is smaller, and which in the long run possibly has an even greater international sales opportunity than the RB 211 has.

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Gentleman has commented on the concern of British industry about its proper share of the avionics of the M.R.C.A. I recall being questioned about this by, I think, the then hon. Member for Hendon, North, Sir Ian Orr-Ewing. I gave him certain assurances that British industry would have a fair crack of the whip. If there is damage, if there is an unfair share of work, if there is concern, the House would be grateful for particulars from the hon. Gentleman, and would be grateful if, in due course, whenever a statement is made on the M.R.C.A., it would meet such charges.

Mr. Onslow: In so far as it is proper for anyone in my position on the back

benches to give such an assurance, I can say that I will never withhold information if it is in my possession and if it is likely to be of use. When decisions are made we should be satisfied that all the anxieties have been looked into and that none of them still arises. There were undoubtedly anxieties when the right hon. Gentleman was in a position of governmental responsibility, and I am not sure whether all of them have yet been allayed.
On the question of the new fighter, the Gnat-Hunter replacement, the right hon. Gentleman was less than fair to himself. I think that we know rather more about it than he suggested. I have seen no evidence that there is a likelihood of buying an American aircraft off the peg. That is a very fanciful supposition.
But it is almost the overwhelming requirement of this project that it should be saleable around the world. I put the need to satisfy the fine precision of R.A.F. requirements very much second in order of priority, because, in the very terms of the defence White Paper, it is an aircraft which has to be a replacement for the Gnat and Hunter. The characteristic of the Hunter was that if it were still being made it would be selling like a bomb. I understand that there have been moments when Hawkers have seriously thought of restarting the Hunter production line, and there have been moments when I have been tempted to think that we would be better advised to get them to do that than to proceed with the development, in competition and at cost between British manufacturers, of a totally new project.
We must learn to live with the technology we can afford, and what we should be seeking is an aircraft that will sell like the Gnat, Hunter and Lightning, and to the same people who are using those aircraft today, new or refurbished, and who will undoubtedly, if we have nothing more to offer, turn to someone else and be lost to us as customers for ever. I am sorry if this view gives offence, but I believe that that need is higher than any R.A.F. requirement for exactly the sort of trainer aircraft it would prefer in an ideal world.
I return again to the question of back-up for the Harrier. In effect this means "Whatever happened to the HS681?" Again, it is a rhetorical question. I do not want to embarrass the


right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon by asking for a reply. What happened to the HS681 at a time when all of a sudden all sorts of people in the civilian context are beginning to understand that the next generation of aircraft which will be of most use is likely to be composed of aircraft with reduced takeoff and lift capability? Whereas we have in the Harrier the only aircraft in the world with short and vertical take-off and lift capability, because we did not go through the consistent plan which was originally formulated around this concept we have no transport aircraft with the characteristics required for forward supply, battlefield support, for the Harrier in its dispersal points—and which would also have an enormous application in the civilian field. This is a tragedy, the order of which can be seen by looking at the work going on in the United States, where N.A.S.A. is commissioning a study around a specially modified Buffalo to see what can be done in the RTOL and STOL context. We should have been five or six years ahead, and able to claim pioneering status, had we gone through with the original concept in 1965 onwards.
Another application which stems straight from the military uses and application of V/STOL is the need for indirect approach. Few things are more absurd than the fact that to land at Heathrow a modern transport aircraft must start in a straight line over our heads here and motor gently downwards for about six miles. It is idiotic that this should be so. It may be inevitable at present, in view of what is so far known about the noise characteristics of aircraft and the need for an approach under conditions of the greatest possible safety. But no one should suppose that there are not other ways of doing it, and that there may not be other ways of bringing an aircraft into land at a steeper angle and in an indirect approach. And these matters are of enormous relevance when we think of the problems associated with building airports in the 1980s and 1990s.
I believe that military work in this problem is going on—I hope that it is—and that it has enormous application on the civil side. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make inquiries to ensure that there is the maximum co-operation between the civil and the military sides,

and if anyone on the military side in Whitehall happens to be working on devices to make aircraft quieter, I hope that he will not forget to mention it to those of us primarily concerned with civil aviation.
I am conscious that the next thing I am to say may be regarded as being as fanciful in its tenor as some of the things which I have recalled as having been said by the right hon. Member for Aberavon. I believe that when we come to consider a replacement for the R.A.F.'s transport aircraft, particularly those which are to operate over relatively long ranges with passengers rather than freight, the R.A.F., which is operating both Comets and Britannias, should give serious consideration to the possibility that the Concorde might have an application to its work.
I hope that we can be assured, if it needs reiteration, that there is no question of the R.A.F. buying the C5A, which is the sort of aircraft no one needs and which is many times less necessary to us than the Belfast, whose unhappy history is only too familiar. If we are to think in terms of moving troops about the world, we should remember that flexibility involves the ability to match any enemy in speed of response. It seems possible at least that there is a case for the R.A.F., towards the end of this decade, if not sooner, to have a small flight of Concordes. These aircraft could be used for very quick response in moving battalion units—the men, although certainly not the equipment—swiftly to various places in the world. I see my hon. Friend looking sceptical, as I expected he would, but surely the productivity of Concorde is much greater because of its speed than that of any other aircraft which the R.A.F. is likely to have. If we are to be ready to put out fires in various parts of the world Concorde would provide unmatched speed to get the men out to the scene.
I have tried to give a number of instances where it is obvious, and possibly not so obvious, that the R.A.F. has a considerable rôle to play as a user of equipment to be built in this country, and one which may become more effectively realised in Whitehall because of the reorganisation which has recently taken place. Many people in industry now hope that the R.A.F. will not be quite so


carefree in placing its requirements around the world, that it will have greater consciousness of what British industry can do and of the need to support British projects rather than buy from abroad—rather, even, than launch into European co-operative ventures. I do not think that it is any derogation of the importance of the R.A.F. or its contribution to our defence if occasionally and perhaps slightly unexpectedly we remind ourselves that it has a part to play in British industry. If it plays that rôle successfully, we shall be all the more grateful to it.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I find so much to agree with in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that my own may be but a pale echo of his. I agree with his view of the need for some sort of transport aircraft to support the Harrier. Without such an aircraft, I believe that the Harrier is not able to be as credible or as flexible as it should be. However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State saved himself at the eleventh hour because, whereas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking has said rightly, a medium-lift helicopter is not referred to in the White Paper, he at least referred to it in his opening speech.
I understand that the R.A.F. is likely to make its choice of a medium-lift helicopter by the end of this month and that that choice is likely to fall either on the most recent version of the Chinook or on the Sikorsky CH53. As we have been reminded, the last Government in 1967 intended to order 15 Chinook helicopters but eight months later cancelled the order because of financial stringency. That cost the country a great deal of money, as any cancelled order always does. The idea then was to use the Chinooks in such places as Borneo and Malaysia, essentially in the anti-guerrilla type of operation. Now, the aircraft is being looked at with Western Europe also in mind. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the need for such a support aircraft has clearly been there since the Harrier first went into service.
The Harrier operates from very forward bases. It is dispersed. It is considered very difficult to spot from the air. When such an aircraft is supplied

by means of "bowsers" driving along roads and across fields, it quickly becomes spottable to any sort of reconnaissance, so that the Harrier in such circumstances has lost its ability to hide. Clearly, a medium-lift helicopter which can take loads of 10 tons of fuel or more, flying into the same sort of air strip as the Harrier, will restore to the Harrier its secrecy, its ability to operate from dispersed air strips and its ability not to be spotted easily from the air.
I am glad that the R.A.F. is to be allowed to order one of these helicopters and that the order is likely to be announced before the end of this month. I have one reservation, however. The aircraft is to be ordered directly from the American makers rather than from one of the European licensees. Yet both the Chinook and the Sikorsky are being built under licence in Europe, one by the Germans and the other by the Italians. At a time when European collaboration seems to stand so high in our thinking, it seems slightly strange to order directly from America rather than from one of the European manufacturers. It is strange for the further reason that had we gone to one of the European manufacturers, particularly the Germans—who are building the Sikorsky—probably the rotors and gear boxes would have been built by Westlands. I understand that the order in the first instance is to be for 15 aircraft but may well go up to 40 or even 60 at a total cost of £75 million. One must hope that the order will carry with it a measure of reciprocation from the Americans, so that they buy some of our equipment in return.
I believe that this aircraft will have a profound effect on the credibility and flexibility of the Harrier. It has an additional advantage, which has clearly been shown in Vietnam, where the Americans have been flying the Chinook for many years, that, as Flight has stated, a damaged helicopter can be airlifted off its air strip and taken back to repair shops behind the battle zone. In Vietnam the Chinook has rescued nearly 10,000 shot-down helicopters, and there would be nothing to prevent it picking-up a Harrier. Therefore, clearly, this aircraft will be useful in many ways. It also has the ability to carry troops and weapons, and, therefore, quite apart from the European theatre, it will be


useful wherever there is a British commitment.
But it has one disadvantage, and this allows me to make another comment on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. It has the disadvantage of almost all helicopters; that is, that it is slow and fairly vulnerable. Indeed, the helicopter losses in Vietnam, particularly in recent months, have been very high, indeed. Clearly, once they come up against a sophisticated defence, helicopters find themselves in a very weak position.
It is for this reason that the Americans are themselves now considering what they call a light intra-theatre transport, and we in this country should be turning our thoughts in that direction. The time is due for resurrecting something like the 681. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking rightly said, clearly we missed a great opportunity when we cancelled that aircraft, because so many lessons that we shall now have to learn, in rather less time than we could have had, are there to be learned, and we are no further ahead in the state of the art than anybody else.
But I still think that we can catch up and catch up quickly if we see these medium-lift helicopters as stop-gap aircraft, for we must realise that in the Harrier we have a unique weapon system and that we have not in any way realised its potential as a weapons system, that we have not exploited its many uses, that we have done very little to encourage its sales to friendly countries and that for back-up facilities, a slow helicopter is not in the end the answer.
At this moment, there are three vertical take-off and/or short take-off projects under consideration by the Ministry of Aviation Supply. One is for a tilt-wing aircraft, a project put forward by Westlands. This is very similar to the project which the Americans are now considering for their light intra-threatre transport. I do not say that it is necessarily the right aircraft. I do say that it will be much quicker than existing helicopters and could easily have a top speed of 400 m.p.h. as against the 170 m.p.h. of aircraft like the Chinook. It may not be that the Westland aircraft is the one that we should be considering and perhaps we should be selecting the

B.A.C. submission or the Hawker submission; but what is clear is that there is a need for this aircraft and without it our Support Command will not be properly equipped and nor will Harrier be able to be as successful as it should be.
I suggest that there is a further spinoff that could come from ordering such an aircraft for the R.A.F. It would be doing what the Americans have been so successful in doing—spreading the development costs of an aircraft over the armed forces and seeing a civilian version go to the airlines. We have never done that in this country. It is usually the other way round. It now seems that we have an opportunity which we should explore as hard as we can.
While on the subject of helicopters, I should like to turn to the subject of R.A.F. air-sea rescue. I understand that the air-sea rescue branch of the R.A.F. no longer feels that the Whirlwind helicopter is adequate to look after the problems of long distance air-sea rescue and that it is anxious to buy the Sea King helicopter made by Westlands, the makers of the Whirlwind. It is particularly anxious to have this aircraft as it has proved itself to the extent that it has been ordered by Germany and Norway although up against stiff opposition from America, France and Japan. I understand that the Sea King is very highly equipped with British avionics. It is able to operate in all weathers, by day or night, and it would make our air-sea rescue ability very much more effective and very much more efficient.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will carefully consider ordering some of these aircraft for the R.A.F., for I am sure that he will agree that our air-sea rescue should be as good as that in any part of the world. It is certainly true that if the British Government buy an aircraft of that kind, overseas sales are given an enormous fillip, and Sea King is an aircraft which should be bought by many more countries which at this moment may be diffident about buying because they ask themselves, "If it is so good, why doesn't the R.A.F. order it?"
Clearly, I could not speak in this debate without mentioning the multi-rôle combat aircraft. Everyone in the


House must hope that this aircraft will be a great success. After all, it is to be the front-line aircraft for Western Europe for many years to come. It is to be the first major European combat aircraft—and I stress "European". Therefore, when one hears so many rumours and so many doubts being expressed about it from so many quarters, one feels that there comes a time when questions must be asked and answered. I propose this afternoon to air some of these rumours and doubts in the hope that my hon. Friend will be able to refute them totally so that we may all go away happier than I for one am about this project at this moment.
The first of the doubts relates to the ability of the German aircraft industry to manage a project as complex as M.R.C.A., or to control its costs within limits. It is a very complicated aeroplane, and, therefore, it could be very expensive. Yet it seems so strange that the managers of this project, the West Germans, who have not built a single strike aircraft of their own design since the war, should be entrusted with seeing this project through to production.
It seems particularly strange because the British partner in Panavia, the makers of M.R.C.A., is the British Aircraft Corporation, a company which has proved itself over and over again, a company which can lay claim to the brilliant successes of the Canberra and the Lightning, an aircraft company which has managed a major complex project and successfully brought it to fruition. Yet B.A.C. is more or less the junior partner in the M.R.C.A. project with the West Germans who have not built a combat aircraft for the past 26 years.
One must wonder why the last Government ever allowed themselves to sign a contract placing the British aircraft industry in this secondary rôle to the West Germans. One is forced to the conclusion that there were probably two reasons. One was the endless attempt by the last Government to prove their Europeanism by entering into this sort of project, as they did with the A.F.V.G. Secondly, and perhaps more understandably, is the fact that the West Germans said that they wanted 600 aircraft whereas the R.A.F. wanted only 400. Clearly, if the Germans wanted more than anyone

else they should have a greater say in how the project was conducted.

Mr. Onslow: In fairness to the German partners in M.R.C.A., I think my hon. Friend would agree that Herr Madelung and Herr Forster-Steinberg, who are the overseeing brains on the German side, have considerable, continuous and widespread experience in the aviation industry, not confined to Germany, but I believe in both cases deriving from long periods of work in America.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I entirely accept that. However, it does not invalidate my point, which is that the West German aircraft industry has not since the war had the control of a project as complicated as this one. It seems that the M.R.C.A. agreement was signed on the footing that the West Germans wanted 600 aircraft and the R.A.F. 400. The Italians were to take some, and possibly the Dutch, but in essence it was the West Germans and the British. Recently, in conversation with some of those controlling the destinies of Panavia, I have been informed that West Germany would certainly want 250 of these aircraft. If this is true, if it is now only 250 and the R.A.F. still want 400, then it seems that this contract is a bit lopsided. Why should it be that the headquarters of Panavia is in Munich rather than in Filton, Weybridge, Warton or wherever B.A.C. chooses?
Then there is the question of the shareholding in Panavia. This is equally split between the West Germans and ourselves to the tune of 42½ per cent, with the Italians holding 15 per cent. I am told—and I would be delighted if my hon. Friend can tell me that I am talking nonsense—that the West Germans are providing 4 per cent. of the money which the Italians are purporting to put up. In effect, this means that the West Germans have the majority of the project under their influence and, therefore, can no doubt call the tune. This is particularly significant for our avionics industry, which is far ahead of any other in Western Europe in terms of this type of aircraft. By the way the contract is drawn we can only have 42½ per cent. of whatever avionics are ordered. Presumably, with the West Germans and Italians calling the tune, we shall have those avoinics they decide we should have.
The sadness of all this is that not only may we miss out on some of the avionics which we are uniquely equipped to supply, and which Western Europe will not be able to supply, but that Western Europe will have to turn to America to supply those avionics. Yet we are talking about a European aircraft.
These are the sort of disquieting rumours I have heard about this aeroplane which is to be the front-line combat aircraft for the R.A.F. and is, therefore, crucially important to this country and to our aerospace and avionics industry. If there is some imbalance in this contract, if the Germans really want only 250 when they said they wanted 600, then we should know. However, nothing would give me greater pleasure than for my hon. Friend to get up and refute each one of the statements I have made.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: It is good to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the Front Bench. On the last two occasions that I have seen him there he has been able to give me crumbs of comfort, good morsels of excellent news. The first time was in the Consolidated Fund debate, when he gave me good news about naval reserves, and the second time has been today, when he has made a most interesting statement about the future of the Royal Air Force reserves and in particular about a commitment to expand the ground element of those reserves. That is a major step forward which all hon. Members will welcome.
We have had a wide-ranging debate, including a speech from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), of the "Blue Water school", who spoke in no uncertain terms about the indivisibility of air power, for which I am heartily thankful. It is something that this House and those interested in defence should never forget.
We have had interesting and valuable contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), who talked about Royal Air Force procurement programmes and particularly the need for air supply for Harriers deployed forward, and the

future of the M.R.C.A. programme. We had a contribution from the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) in which he accused me of being over-influenced by the Spitfire era. He referred to something I had published on Royal Air Force reserves, as did the Minister when he spoke of the Battle of Britain in this context.
I do not think that any serious student of strategy or military affairs would take it amiss if he was accused of taking too much note of the lessons of the past. The most notable thing to be learned from military affairs is how the lessons of the past are all too easily forgotten rather than readily heeded. If anyone accuses me of harking back to the Battle of Britain I am not in any way ashamed.
If anyone just before the last war had accused those who spoke up for the territorial force of harking back to the Cardwell reforms or to the Haldane reforms that would have been a totally inappropriate criticism because that territorial force later justified itself in the second world war. In similar manner today if anyone accused me of being a "Trenchardist" in the sense of believing in a highly-trained, small, professional, elite force with a capacity for expansion then I would not be at all ashamed because it is the most cost-effective way of disposing of our air power. It has relevance for the future, as the Americans have found in Vietnam and as other powers have found in trying to create new air forces around the globe. The Trenchard model is always the model chosen for new air forces.
I want to deal with a few basic themes, such as the front line, training, reserves and maintenance, and one or two obiter dicta such as naval air power and procurement. First, on the front line point, this Government are to be congratulated for their determination, maintained steadfastly, to ensure the maximum strength of the front line of the R.A.F. It is a deterrent posture, and it is on this front line that the credibility of our deterrent will be judged. The decision to augment N.A.T.O. in Europe by four extra squadrons of Jaguars has much to recommend it. But the Jaguar is in its infancy; it is at the beginning of its development potential. There has been much talk today about sales potential.


What the Jaguar needs is an uprating which will enable it to defend itself even more effectively in the battle area, and we need the possibility of a simplified version, along the lines of the French trainer version perhaps, for sale to overseas air forces.
The Harrier has been mentioned most eulogistically by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester and by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East. It is a radical breakthrough in aviation technology. It is sad to see our prophetic designers not being allowed to follow up in production their full vision of aircraft developments. Nevertheless, the Harrier is flying in squadron service, but it needs a substantial uprating of its power plant if it is to achieve the full payload and range which its design should enable it to possess. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to say something about this matter if he has time, together with the question of the possible uprating of the Jaguar.
Air defence, which was mentioned in the White Paper, has not been discussed today, apart from rhetoric, and the odd slogan from the right hon. Member for Aberavon in terms of vigilance—in the best Fighter Command tradition. The air defence of this country is still the prime rôle of the Royal Air Force. The Phantom is to replace the Lightning in the air defence squadrons of Strike Command towards the end of this decade. In view of the longevity of the Lightning and the tremendous sophistication of its design, I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether it will be possible to extend the interceptor rôle of the Lightning, particularly the Mark VI's, and to have more Phantoms in a strike and close air support rôle. They have an essential function in strike duties, particularly as M.R.C.A. could conceivably be late in coming into service. I will not hypothesise, but other aircraft have been late. In that event, it might be worth while to extend the life of the Lightning in the intercept rôle.
M.R.C.A. is absolutely crucial to the fighting strength of the Air Force. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester emphasised how important it was that we should, where possible, build our own weapon systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East rightly put the matter in its European

context. This is the touchstone in military terms of our determination technologically to play our part in the defence of Europe. We should therefore with all determination pursue the development of this product which is so vital to our industrial and military future.
The variable geometry principle has many applications for the future. One can envisage without too much effort a whole generation of aircraft to succeed the M.R.C.A. in the close air support or training rôle capable of operating from short strips and dispersed fields or even from carriers. I think the American Navy is interested in the M.R.C.A. in this regard. More is the pity that the Royal Navy is not.
I turn to the question of training. It was my mentor Trenchard who said that it was on the training of the Royal Air Force that all else depended. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has elaborated at great length on the training schemes of the Royal Air Force. However, he made no mention of two important facets of training—primary training and the university air squadrons.
It is important that a new trainer be procured to succeed the Chipmunk. If there is no such aircraft it is hard to foresee what the future of the university air squadrons and of the air experience flights will be. As aircraft become more sophisticated, the logical thing to do is to move the whole spectrum of flying training to the right, in the terms of the right hon. Member for Aberavon. In other words, we should be aiming at a trainer of the performance of the Siai Marchetti S260 for the primary/basic rôle, which would be a logical lead-in to the intermediate trainer, the new jet trainer, be it the HS 1182, the P 59 or—and I hate to use the term—the Alpha jet. We need a new primary trainer. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to let us know the Government's plans in this regard.
The decisions about the new jet trainer must be made purely on performance criteria and marketability. I presume that the aircraft will have a strike capability. It must do so if it is to have the sales potential to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking referred. If it does not have a weapons capability, it will not sell to the under-developed countries which need such an aircraft.
From flying training I turn logically to the question of reserves, about which I have been taken to task and on which we have had interesting and fruitful discussions over a long period. I was very interested in what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said about the new concept which he seems to be toying with of recognising that there is a rôle for what I call a second line intermediate performance type aircraft in a number of battlefield situations. As Charles Douglas-Home rightly argued, we must not always be seduced by the notion that we must have the best at all times because in defence procurement the best can easily become the enemy of the good in an ever-escalating procurement cost environment. If we accept that premise—and my hon. Friend does so—then we accept that there is a rôle for intermediate performance aircraft.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State rightly said that modern front-line high performance equipment is far too sophisticated and, above all, costly for reservists. I assure him that we do not seek to equip reserve squadrons with such equipment but we believe that there is a need for a pool of partially trained manpower because, as in the Battle of Britain, pilots are harder to replace than aircraft. It takes much longer to train a modern operational pilot than to build the most sophisticated aeroplane. We should seek to build a new comprehensive air reserve structure rather like the Royal Naval Reserve and the Army's Territorial force.
I would welcome in the review which is going on an examination of the idea of creating a single reserve from the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. I do not believe that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, for all the fine work it performs in the No. 18 (Maritime) Group of Strike Command and the maritime control units and all the good work done by its officers and men, should continue as it is at present. It would be better if it were combined with the Volunteer Reserve and we created a new Royal Air Force reserve.
I saw an admirable advertisement in a flying magazine for such an organisation which exists in the United States. It said:
Land yourself a great job at weekends. Remember back when the first love of your life was flying or perhaps secretly still is.

It pointed out that there is a requirement for ex-military personnel who had had short service commissions to give of their experience and provide an expansion capability for the United States Air Force, which the Royal Air Force needs just as much. Looking to the future, with fixed targets of defence spending and with the graph of manpower costs ever rising, we must adopt new policies to whittle down our manpower costs and enable us to buy the sophisticated equipment we need. If we make that sort of study we must come to the conclusion that more can be done by reservists, and that thereby we shall not be forced to spend more on defence, something which is politically difficult at this time.
I must try to allay the notion that it is high performance aircraft I want. It is nothing of the sort. I envisage something like the Strikemaster. Perhaps obsolescent or redundant Jet Provosts could be used in the interim, but ultimately we must harmonise our equipment for the Reserve and for Training Command so that the New Jet Trainer becomes equipment for the reserve and the Siai Marchetti S260 becomes the equipment for the basic flying schools, the university air squadrons and the basic flights of the Reserve. That would be cost-effective and exceedingly rational.
I must emphasise that the Government realise the importance of extending the Services' influence within the community. In the chapter on Reserve Forces in the Statement on the Defence Estimates we read in the very first paragraph:
The significance of the Reserve Forces extends far beyond their essential military rôle. They, and the Cadet Forces, are among the most important of the links between the Services and the civil community. From the Services' point of view this brings advantages in terms of recruiting. But that is only part of the benefit: anything that helps to root the Armed Forces more firmly in the wider community, which they exist to serve, is of mutual value.
My hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to the work being done by the professional staffs of the Royal Air Force recruiting services, and he gave as examples their bases in the North-East and in the North-West. My comment is how very much better it would be to have, let us say, a Northumbrian squadron and a Lancastrian squadron in the Royal Air Force


Reserve training a few people ab initio, and giving some of the people in those areas of relatively high unemployment something useful to do and providing a chance of community service by the youth there. It would be a unit rather like the local Territorial unit, in which all could take pride.
I attended one of the exhibitions at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in August of last year mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I wrote to tell him how excellent it was. A better demonstration of the Royal Air Force's capability and of the worthwhileness of the Service as a career for any young man one could not wish to see, but it would be even better if people were given an opportunity for part-time service in their locality. It is quite wrong that the Royal Air Force, alone of the three Services, should suffer from that lack.
We have had a most interesting debate, but I regret the passing of the old debates on the individual Defence Estimates. I also regret the fact that we do not have a single Service breakdown of defence expenditure, because that is needed if these debates are to be made meaningful. But I welcome the fact that on our Front Bench we have our very own Minister for the Royal Air Force. It is most admirable that each Service should have its own political head to whom it can turn. That is good and right for morale.
I take issue directly with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), with whose article on this subject in The Times I wholeheartedly disagree. I am glad that we have my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, particularly as such a reorganisation has been good not only for morale but also for reducing expenditure in the central administration of defence to the tune of no less than £23,000.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am a little baffled by the enthusiasm displayed by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) for having his very own Minister for the Royal Air Force because it seems to me that the logic of the White Paper that has just been produced by his Government leads one to think that the days of individual Service Ministers have gone,

as they did under my right hon. Friends, and that the set-up in the White Paper lends itself to a Defence Ministry as such rather than to individual Ministers. On the issue of reserves, the hon. Gentleman, as I understand him, thinks that a return to the Trenchardian system of a large number of short-service officers and a small elite holding permanent commissions would benefit both the regular R.A.F. and the Reserves. He told us that the lessons of the past are too easily forgotten. But I ask: which lessons? The scheme we have heard about may at first sight look attractive—indeed, it was doubtless the optimum system until some years ago, and certainly in Lord Trenchard's time and long after—but can it be said that it at all holds water now?
It cannot apply today for reasons given by the Minister in his distinction between the need for pilots and the need for ground staff. The cost of pilot training is such that for reasons of economy full-time R.A.F. regular pilots already receive less training than one would wish to see, and the Minister himself states that it costs nearly as much to get a reservist pilot trained as it does a man in regular service. For all the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) and by the Minister himself, I should have thought that this idea was not valid. Nor am I impressed by what the hon. Member for Bradford, West had to say about the Israelis and the rôle of their Israeli reserve, because their reserves are regularly in action. The Swiss Air Force is based on a conscription system and to that extent is totally different from our own.
Perhaps in winding up the debate one should turn first to the subject of recruiting. It would be churlish of us on this side not to welcome the good figures, but equally, if we are being generous, could not a little more generosity have been displayed from the other side about the introduction by my right hon. Friends of the military salary? Would one be wrong in believing that the principle of the miltary salary had something to do with the good recruiting figures?
The sombre fact is, as Members from Wales and Scotland know very well, that


as soon as unemployment reaches a certain critical level it leads to more recruits. They may often be high calibre recruits, they may be young men who, above all, do not want to be idle, but the truth is that once unemployment reaches a certain level recruiting becomes better, as does the quality of recruit. That ought to be said when we are dwelling on the better recruitment figures.
Preventing unnecessary wastage is at least as important as creating conditions for satisfactory recruitment. There is the very real human problem, as the Royal Air Force knows, of legitimate career expectations. There is a career pyramid, and my forecast is that during the 70s the base of the career pyramid is likely to be narrower rather than broader. Understandably, the feeling may develop that a man should get out of the R.A.F. while there is still time to retrain and someone is likely to want him in civilian life. I have no magic panacea for this problem, but it is worth making a number of reflections.
There could be a far closer understanding between the R.A.F. and the civil airlines. This is not to imply that B.E.A., B.O.A.C. or, for that matter, private operators do not take on some R.A.F. personnel and display due sympathy and consideration when approached. Of course they do. But the nub is whether a man who has served in the R.A.F. can enter employment with the civil airlines at the level of seniority commensurate with his service. My information is that this simply does not happen. The contention is that if some feed-in to the civil airlines at a suitable level could be established, R.A.F. personnel in their thirties would become less edgy about their careers and stay in the Service for as long as they were wanted in the knowledge that they could make the transfer to civil work without loss of earnings or status.
This assumes particular importance in view of what the Minister said about a possible shortage of pilots in the late 1970s. Such a meaningful link between the R.A.F. and the civil airlines makes additional good sense when each is faced with training costs rising at an exponential rate. An R.A.F. jet pilot may require training to the value of about £250,000,

and it really does not make much sense to ask him to become a salesman or a market gardener in his thirties.
I specifically ask the Government whether they are happy about the civil airline licensing arrangements for ex-R.A.F. pilots. My information is that a Royal Air Force pilot, even though he may be flying Britannias or VC10s, has to go through expensive and archaic licensing arrangements. There have been concessions—let us give credit where credit is due—on the ground examinations for Air Support Command pilots. This is a step in the right direction, but what is required is a formula whereby Service flying experience is related to civil flying hours, so that a Service pilot does not necessarily have to start at the bottom of the seniority ladder. Such a coherent programme would require the co-operation of the airline pilots' unions, and I ask the Government what plans they have, if any, to talk to B.A.L.P.A. and the other unions involved.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am glad to see him on the Front Bench. Is he aware that it is the State corporations which make it most difficult for an ex-Service pilot to have the sort of responsibilities which are commensurate with his past experience as a military pilot? It takes about nine years for a pilot to get a captaincy in B.O.A.C. whereas in an independent airline it takes about two years to get a captaincy of a BAC111. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman is arguing for just such a reserve system as I am advocating. With short service commissions there would be no reluctance to go into civil flying, and it would be possible to train reserve civilian pilots cheaply as well as military pilots.

Mr. Dalyell: The truth is that there has been perhaps a lack of initiative by most, if not all, parties involved. There is a new problem here. I am not particularly interested in past fault but in the future, and I am saying to the Govenment that now that this situation has arisen—particularly the shortage of pilots in the late 1970s to which the Minister referred—this is the time to get on a firm basis. We could get into a long argument about the responsibilities of State airlines versus private operators. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree


that the conditions under which some private operators work make it easier for them to take on people at short notice if only because their career structure is younger.
It is not only the civil airlines which should have the responsibility of helping the legitimate career expectations of Servicemen. Government Departments and private industry should become more used to taking on Servicemen at all levels. Some of us on this side are convinced that far more could be done in the public service, in spite of the long and detailed letters we have received from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to integrate a Service career with that of some sectors of the Inland Revenue.
With the raising of the school-leaving age, more could be done to attract ex-Servicemen to teaching, not least for what they could contribute to schools—and I am not referring to barrack-room discipline. The schools can well do with a leavening of teachers whose career pattern has not been that of school, college, back to school—from one side of the teachers' desk to the other. The Serviceman with a varied experience has something to offer.
What has become of the Inter-departmental Committee between Defence and Education? I am not suggesting that it has become moribund, but under my right hon. Friends it was an active committee, and we have not heard much about it recently.
I listened with interest to what the Minister said about implementing the ideas of the last Government about creating a mid-career point at 38. We fully endorse this and the findings of Sir Derek Hodgkison and his Committee. It is right to delay selection for a full career until late in the 30s, and it is particularly satisfactory that this should do away with the two grades of officers.
I should like to refer to another scheme introduced by my right hon. Friends, and that is the starred mechanic scheme. It is particularly relevant because the Minister said his chief worry about manpower in the R.A.F. was in the engineering branch. The starred mechanic scheme offers young mechanics a guarantee of fitter training within the first two years of entry into the R.A.F. Not only does this increase the number of available fitters,

but I have talked to young men who have a high opinion of the training they receive. I can claim some knowledge of these matters. As one goes round industry in these circles there is a wide view that the standard of technical training achieved in the Services is not paralleled, and is certainly not bettered, in any sector of private or public industry. I should like to put on record the high regard many of us have for the level of training, particularly in the Royal Air Force, that is given to young mechanics.
Of no less importance than the training of entrants are the opportunities for existing personnel. It is encouraging to hear of the success with the upgrading of manpower from lower to very highly skilled trades. I ask the Government for a progress report on the Mechanic Apprentice Scheme initiated by my right hon. Friends in October, 1969.
Incidentally, on the repercussions of raising the school-leaving age, I agree that there are problems for the Forces. I do not know whether I can speak on behalf of the official Opposition on this, but my party, or most of it, totally rejects the proposition that 16-year-olds should be allowed, when the school-leaving age is raised, to leave early—that is, at 15—for work in the Services. This is not the view of most of my hon. Friends, I suspect, and the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) is unacceptable to us. The Government might wish to comment on whether they would entertain this suggestion.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It was not just a question of work. It involved work and education in parallel within the Service.

Mr. Dalyell: I would certainly give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the benefit of any doubt, but the principle of allowing people away from school at under 16 years of age is totally unacceptable to us.
I have heard a great deal about resettlement courses and the imaginative and sensible way in which they are run. It is true that the interviews by resettlement officers two years before a man leaves the Services are valuable when they happen, but the fact is that for one


reason or another they do not universally happen. Some of us feel that a resettlement course of four weeks is inadequate. If a man has served his country in the Royal Air Force for a number of years, surely he has a minimum entitlement to a proper resettlement course? This may be a minimum of six months. It must be recognised that a long-term Serviceman is owed an opportunity to be retrained for a civilian career.
Equally, on the matter of pensions, the sort of intelligent young man whom one wishes to see in the Royal Air Force will be long-sighted enough to want to know that his pension will be parallel to that of his contemporary in college. Therefore, apart from the justice of the matter, the aim should be that pensions and gratuities should be brought more into line in the Services with the civilian equivalent.
On the matter of welfare, a number of hon. Members have experience that when a man leaves the Services he faces a housing problem. There has been correspondence between various hon. Members and the Department on this matter, and I should like to put on record the fact that it is difficult for a number of local authorities with long housing lists of their own to give priority to Service applicants. We ask only for parity. However, at the same time there is a vast difference between the way in which some local authorities treat Service applications and the way they are treated by others. I hope that perhaps the time has come for a repeat of the circular which was sent out by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1965 to local authorities on the subject of Service housing. Perhaps now, in 1971, there could be another circular.

Mr. Onslow: I was responsible for stimulating the then Government to re-circulate that circular in 1965 since it was a circular which had been issued a number of years earlier. I suggest that it might be more helpful if there were to be a review of the work which has taken place since then, which is considerable in those areas where there are large Service establishments, stressing the rôle played by voluntary bodies in helping to overcome these difficult problems.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps Ministers would reflect on what both parties have done in this respect. It may well be the subject of parliamentary questions.
I welcome the fact that the payment of separation allowances is to be liberalised. On the provision of quarters the Minister almost apologised to the House as if he were raising a trivial matter, but it is a matter of some importance. I recently visited the Royal Air Force establishment at Lossiemouth. Anybody who has recently visited that camp knows the need for 90 officers quarters and 600 other-ranks quarters. I welcomed what the Minister had to say on this topic. I hope that he will be able to impose on the Department his ideas about better quarters, the modernisation of barrack blocks, with built-in furniture and all the rest. These may sound somewhat trivial matters but those of us who have paid visits to the forces know that they are far from trivial.
Had the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) been present, I had intended to raise the subject of the repair and maintenance of aircraft on board carriers as between the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. Since the hon. Gentleman is not here I will not comment on that matter other than to say that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester accused his own Front Bench of giving evasive answers. Some of us are curious to know what the Government will say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on this rather important question.
I should like to raise the question of language training in the forces, which has assumed an importance in the mind of a number of senior Royal Air Force officers. It is an important factor in any effort to increase contact with the forces of our European allies that we should have personnel who possess adequate fluency in an appropriate language. There are two basic requirements. The first is to have a large number of people with a basic knowledge sufficient for the individual to converse readily on everyday affairs so that he may be adequately understood in any area in which there are few English speakers—in other words, individuals who possess a colloquial knowledge of a language. The second is to have a moderate number of officers with real fluency, so enabling the individual concerned to discuss the specialised


topics to the full range of his military and technical knowledge.
Since English and French are the official N.A.T.O. languages, it could be argued that improvement in ability within a Service to speak French is all that is required. This would be a foolish attitude since it ignores the importance in the alliance of Germany and Italy. It would be sensible to concentrate on French and German, and perhaps later Italian, but in the short-term might we not provide greater incentives to those with the opportunity and inclination for language study in the way of improved training facilities, financial help at public expense if a Serviceman wishes to learn a specific language and improved financial reward for those who possess language skills?
Another possibility might be to offer some financial inducement to a Service undergraduate to spend his long vacation studying a N.A.T.O. language. Long-term leisure might include more language study at officer cadet colleges, though it would have to be tied in with other curricula requirements, including the need to keep the course at reasonable length. For potential liaison officers and serious linguists post-college courses may be necessary.
The demands of existing professional training in all three Services bear heavily upon the individual's ability for productive employment and often upon his leisure. The extra personal effort required to obtain and keep up a language qualification must be clearly justified in terms of both requirement and reward. If this seems esoteric, in reality the question of language capability is an important practical problem if we are to have meaningful European defence co-operation and greater ease of working with European allies in operational and staff environments. Perhaps a system of rewards for language achievement would also help to show our allies that we are taking practical steps in support of Britain's expressed objective of furthering European defence co-operation.
The whole issue of equipment is better left to the Government White Paper and to the debate on the Transfer of Functions Order. However, certain points have been raised in this debate on this matter. The Minister mentioned the ques-

tion of flying simulators, and, granted the expense of training, we would like to hear more about it.
The Minister talked about the increase in efficiency of the Phantom in its conventional rôle. Those of us who have followed these matters closely know the vast expense of installing a British engine in the Phantom, which is basically an American aircraft. If greater efficiency has been achieved we welcome it but this seems to be a throwaway of some significance.
I also welcome what was said about the Puma, the Anglo-French helicopter. It contrasts with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester about international collaboration. I should have thought that both the Puma and the decision which one hopes will be taken soon on the medium-lift helicopter will counteract what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
The speech made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), whatever else one may think about it, must be taken notice of. The hon. Member, who has now left the Chamber, must realise that the rumours he mentioned are potentially very damaging. This debate may not have attracted many hon. Members but it will be read in Europe and by industry, and if hon. Members say about the M.R.C.A. the kind of things that were said by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East, they should realise that they have a certain responsibility in raising the subject.
Now that this has gone into print, I say to the Government that either they have to scotch as being false what was said by the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East or they must make a fairly full statement, and, in particular, we must have some kind of answer to the hon. Gentleman's statement that the Germans were ordering only 250 M.R.C.A.s instead of the intended 600. This all adds up to the need for more progress reports on the M.R.C.A. and endorses what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, that nothing has been said to Parliament about this aircraft since July of last year, and that because of its importance it is about time that we had some kind of regular progress report.
I have one more question to ask on equipment. There is in the White Paper a full statement which I think many hon. Members will welcome, about procurement, and controllers but I am bothered about this, and so are some members of the Royal Air Force and those in the Scientific Civil Service. If there is to be a career in procurement, to what extent will it be open to R.A.F. officers? Are the controllers as members of the Army, Navy and R.A.F. Board to be members of the Service? If they are to be, what about morale in that it will affect plum jobs of the Scientific Civil Service? These questions are of some concern to people affected outside, and the earlier a statement is made on this the better.
It has been said that no debate on this subject would be complete without a brief reference to the Meteorological Office. Perhaps some mention should be made of the progress in the installation of the I.B.M. 360, the 195 model, which I think resulted from the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, and which comes into service later this year.
In talking about the Meteorological Office, I think that some mention should be made of its climatological service to help contractors in the joint Anglo-French Upper Air Station in the New Hebrides, and plans for a world-wide network of ocean observing stations. We welcome the work which is being entered into with U.N.E.S.C.O. and W.M.O.
Another relatively minor but important point is R.A.F. OPMACC. The Minister talked about service participation in public life and OPMACC is part of it. One thinks of the work done by the Royal Air Force in studying the changing patterns of vegetation, the control of pests, the development of engineering projects, and the surveys of damage done by natural disasters. I shall not claim any party advantage, but this was all started under the imaginative schemes launched by my right hon. Friend, and we would like some kind of progress report. No Scottish or Welsh Member of Parliament can be unaware of the excellent work done by the Royal Air Force in mountain rescue work and, indeed, in rescues at sea. Perhaps this all increases the number of interesting jobs done by the Service.
I now propose to mention one other smallish point. There was a letter to The Times by Sir Dermot Boyle about the Royal Air Force Museum and the Handley Page models, plans and designs. As one who had some interest in the Handley Page firm, I can say that many hon. Members value this kind of collection and feel that it should be kept in its entirety. Perhaps the Government might help a private purchaser to put it in the Royal Air Force Museum that is being built up. I am in favour of this kind of thing, in the same way that I signed a Motion hoping to preserve the cruiser "Belfast". Whether we like it or not, this is all a unique part of our history, and it should be preserved, in the same way that stately homes or ancient castles are preserved. This is part of our history, and I hope that this collection will not be broken up.
I now come to an important part of the Minister's speech and to the theme of part of what my right hon. Friend said. It is the whole argument of quality versus quantity. In the coming year, before the next Royal Air Force debate, we must look hard at the whole philosophy of quality versus quantity. The idea that only the best is good enough for our boys may sound very fine as a slogan, as a cliché, but it means that often we find ourselves with a relatively small number of highly sophisticated, rather vulnerable, very expensive aircraft, when the job could be better done by a larger number of less sophisticated aircraft. This is really a question whether the best can well be the enemy of the good, and in terms both of finance and of strategy it is important that this issue should be examined. The question arises where to draw the line between sophostication and simplicity to achieve maximum cost effectiveness, and I hope that in the coming debates on the White Paper, and elsewhere, attention will be paid by the Government and those responsible for strategy and finance to this extremely vexed problem.
I think that it is traditional for a speaker from this Dispatch Box to pay tribute to the work done by those in the R.A.F. who serve this country in many capacities. Whatever my views on strategy have been from time to time, I have been second to none in being concerned about


the welfare of those who are in the Service. I welcomed the introduction of the military salary, and from visiting the Service one can see the good fortune that this country has in being served by a great number of high quality people.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Lambton: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has made an interesting speech. Today's debate has been marked by no great animosity of any kind, but rather a desire by hon. Members on both sides of the House to improve the lot, the equipment and, generally speaking, the life, of those in the Royal Air Force.
The hon. Gentleman rather suggested that I had, as it were, damned the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) with faint praise. I certainly did not mean to do that, and I thought that in the way I referred to certain of the schemes introduced by the right hon. Member having come to fruition I was showing an appreciation of the work that he had done.
This debate, like most debates in the House, has been noteworthy for the fact that not one Member of the Liberal Party has attended the whole of it, and regrettably we have not had one speech from the back benches opposite. That is rather a pity, but we on this side have made up for it with four speeches of high quality.
The debate has been marked by something which I have always noticed happens when there is a small attendance. There has been an absolute spate of questions. Whenever there are only a few Members present, all those who are here seem to pluck up courage to ask every question they have in mind. I am therefore faced with a number of questions, and if I were to answer them all I should keep the House here all night.
I should like to answer some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for West Lothian. I was asked about the Inter-departmental Committee on Education and Defence—I have forgotten its exact name—which is still in existence and meets quarterly.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that recruiting was good. I think that recruiting bore out the prophecy which the right hon. Member for Aberavon made last year. I hope that it continues to be maintained.
The hon. Member for West Lothian also mentioned housing and the local authorities circular and whether we considered re-issuing the circular. We shall be prepared to reconsider this matter. The hon. Gentleman mentioned languages in the R.A.F. This matter is under consideration and progress rather on the lines on which he spoke is going ahead.
The hon. Gentleman asked for more detailed information about simulators. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a very complicated subject. More simulators are coming into service in the R.A.F. If he would like the precise numbers and dates I will inform him at a later time. This is a method by which it may be possible to economise to a certain degree on air training in future. The R.A.F. is aware of it and is determined to press on with as much simulator training as possible, taking into consideration at the same time the necessity for actual flying practice. One has to match these two factors together.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the starred mechanics system. This scheme continues to work well. As the hon. Gentleman said, its value lies in its raising of the mechanic skill to the higher grade of fitter. I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman at a later date giving him up-to-date figures.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned what he called the balance between quantity and quality. I can only repeat what I said earlier. We have to try to get the right balance. I believe that there are two schools of thought: one which suggests that we should have numbers without sophistication and the other that we should have sophistication without numbers. Obviously both schools are wrong. We need to find a precise balance. I repeat that, with rising costs, there could come a danger period in future if we considered that every plane had to be technically perfectly up to date, as it were. I believe that we must find the right balance.
The right hon. Member for Aberavon also asked a number of questions, some of which I shall try to answer as I go along. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not take up every point which he raised.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about our Air Force contribution to the Five Power defence arrangements in South East Asia. In the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy we announced that this will consist of a continuous detachment of Nimrod long range maritime reconnaissance aircraft and a small number of Whirlwind helicopters. The right hon. Gentleman particularly wanted to know when these planes would go into service. They are planned to go into service either later this year or early next year. As the House has since been told, the Nimrods, together with their air crews, will serve on rotation from this country. The arrangement is flexible and the number of aircraft in the theatre will vary up to four. The number of Whirlwinds to be stationed in the theatre has not finally been settled, but it will be about half a dozen.
Their purpose will be to complement the contribution being made by the other four Powers. The Nimrod will provide a highly advanced capability for maritime reconnaissance which we are better placed to provide than the other four Powers. The Whirlwinds will supply air support for ground forces in the theatre.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed concerned that the Nimrod contribution would be at the expense of our European capability. He must not forget that this is a flexible arrangement which I have described. Taking account of the high mobility of the R.A.F., we should be able to return the aircraft to N.A.T.O. very quickly should the need arise.
The right hon. Gentleman asked when it was hoped that the Jaguars would go into service. All aircraft have certain technological upsets in production. The Jaguar has been no exception. However, its development has not been too unusually disturbed for an aircraft of such complexity. I am hopeful that such difficulties as remain will be sorted out in the not too distant future.

Mr. Onslow: Those who recall the difficulties which the Jaguar experienced at Farnborough last year in making a satisfactory lighting of its after burner will be reassured to know that this problem is expected to be overcome.

Mr. Lambton: In this House one never goes into what specific problems are under way, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are hopeful that the problems which have faced the Jaguar are being overcome.
There have been comments in the Press about escalating costs, but these have not been altogether accurate. We hope that the Jaguars will come into service in about two years from now.
The right hon. Member for Aberavon and my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned the new jet trainer. This trainer is still being considered. Both B.A.C. and H.S.A. have submitted proposals for meeting our requirements. There is also the Franco-German Alpha Jet plane. These are being carefully evaluated to make sure that we make the best choice. There will not be any avoidable delay.
Another matter which has been raised concerns sales of this trainer. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking particularly concentrated on this point. This i3 a relevant factor when considering a new trainer. One of the advantages of getting a good number of sales for an aircraft is that one gets it cheaper oneself.
I agree that the Hunter is a good example of this. This aeroplane sold extremely well throughout the world and the result was a highly economic aircraft for us. In other words, because it was popular abroad, we were able to get it at a reasonable price. This shows the importance of the new jet trainer being of a type which is easily convertible for use by other countries, and I assure the House that this point is very much in mind.
A number of hon. Members spoke about the M.R.C.A. and asked for a definite statement to be made. I suggest that this is not really the time for such a statement to be made, though I am prepared to amplify on this. The last thing we want to convey in the House, bearing in mind the progress review


which with the other countries we will be making later in the summer, is the belief that we may be reconsidering the adoption of this aircraft.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke of the great importance of this aircraft to the R.A.F., as did the right hon. Member for Aberavon. They said that we want to see the power of the M.R.C.A. as a sort of constituent of any future R.A.F. It would be wrong, therefore, for someone suddenly and unexpectedly to produce a statement which might convey the feeling that we were reconsidering our decision to go ahead with the M.R.C.A. I assure the House that there has been no such reconsideration on our part and that we have every intention of going ahead with the programme as planned.

Mr. John Morris: Could the hon. Gentleman indicate when a full statement will be made?

Mr. Lambton: I should say the best time for such a statement would be about July, after the progress review by the countries engaged in building the M.R.C.A.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) spoke of some rumours, which might be said to have had a certain sinister ring about them, concerning the M.R.C.A. I assure him that I know nothing of such rumours. The German authorities announced in their Defence White Paper last year that they did not expect to require more than about 420 and that they would be considering the purchase of other aircraft which would be needed to replace part of their F104 force well before the M.R.C.A. went into service. I do not believe that they have changed their position since then.
There is no question, however, of ordering aircraft at this stage. We are still in the M.R.C.A. development at the initial development stage and production commitments will not arise for some time. All that the partners have done is to give an estimate of their expected requirements. Any question of a change in those estimates is purely hypothetical at this stage. As for the Germans being concerned about the cost of the M.R.C.A., every country is concerned about costs. This aspect will be reviewed later in the summer.
My only comment about Rolls-Royce at this stage is that the RB 199 shows great promise and I am sure that the recent problems of Rolls-Royce will not interfere with its successful development.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend saying that there will be a measure of flexibility in how the final contract may be drawn, so that we might get a larger share of the avionic work?

Mr. Lambton: The detail has not been finally settled. There must, of course, always be give and take when one gets down to the small percentages.
The question of Rolls-Royce is, basically, not really one for my Department, though there is no use pretending that all aero engines in use by the Service are not of Rolls-Royce origin. Thus, we are dependent on Rolls-Royce for the supply of spares and for the overhaul and repair of aero engines. The collapse of the company has not had an adverse effect on the capability of the R.A.F. The nationally-owned company, Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd., was registered on 23rd February, is now operating satisfactorily and is meeting R.A.F. requirements. As I say, this is a matter for Departments other than mine.
I agree that sales are of utmost importance. I was asked about helicopters other than the Pumas, with which I dealt in my opening speech. The R.A.F. requirement for the Lynx and Gazelle is much smaller than that of the other Services. However, the development of both machines continues and the R.A.F. expects the Gazelle to be introduced into service in 1972. The Lynx has recently flown and it is hoped to introduce it into service in 1973. As for the introduction of the Rapier, this year's Defence Estimates and Statement made it clear that it would be introduced into Army service for training in the coming year; and its introduction into the R.A.F. will follow in due course.
I have already answered some of the questions posed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). He asked me to compare the pay of a pilot flying a VC10 for B.O.A.C. between Singapore and London with the pay of a R.A.F. pilot making the same journey. The B.O.A.C. pilot is paid a great deal more,


and if my hon. and gallant Friend wants me to find out the precise figure I will be able to do so only by asking B.O.A.C. for the details and comparing the two.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Can my hon. Friend say how many R.A.F. pilots join B.O.A.C. after having been trained by, and doing service with, the R.A.F.?

Mr. Lambton: Not without notice.

Mr. Lewis: It is quite a number.

Mr. Lambton: We acknowledge that quite a number have left the R.A.F. for the more advantageous pay offered by B.O.A.C. This is one of the problems facing the R.A.F.
I was then asked how many local education authorities refuse to allow recruiting officers into their schools. My noble Friend has recently answered a Question on this subject. I understand that about 12 schools operate some kind of restriction on R.A.F. recruiters but that there is an outright ban in only two or three schools.
Another question which my hon. and gallant Friend raised was one which he might more appropriately have raised next week in the naval debate. This is the question of the sea routes between here and the Far East. It is not possible to answer this question until many things have been considered. The whole question of Harriers for maritime operation has not been brought to a conclusion. One factor in the studies is the series of sea trials. The forthcoming trials from the "Ark Royal" will investigate the implications of deploying such aircraft in operational environment. Not until the proper answer to these questions are received will it be possible to give a full and detailed reply to my hon. and gallant Friend. My hon. and gallant Friend may be content to leave the matter until the trials are completed so that more effective data are available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West wanted to extend the rôle of the Lightnings. I doubt if that would be a cost-effective manoeuvre. The Lightning is an old plane. It is no secret that Lightings have from time to time caused a considerable amount of trouble. The suggestion that the rôle of the Lightnings in Defence Command should be extended

would not endear itself to the R.A.F. or to any economist who made a study of the problem.
My hon. Friend also asked why reserves are possible in certain countries, but not in Britain. The countries my hon. Friend mentioned as having satisfactory flying reserves were the U.S.A., Israel and Switzerland, all of whose reserves were maintained at a professional standard. My hon. Friend must have worked hard to have found it possible to quote such countries. Each of those countries—certainly Switzerland and Israel—has a very different system from that of our voluntary recruiting system. Switzerland has a system of conscription utterly unlike the system we operate. The reserves of other countries cannot be compared with our reserves.

Mr. Wilkinson: I also mentioned the South Africans and the Canadians. The Canadians are of particular interest, because they are an all-professional force, like our own. They have a large number of reserve squadrons with intermediate type equipment. They have Otters.

Mr. Lambton: I can only repeat the argument which has been adduced from both Front Benches that it is not worth spending nearly £¼ million to make a reserve pilot fully operational and then not be able to give him a plane to fly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking raised the question of repairs being handed out to industry. Although this is a wider question than I would wish to deal with tonight, I stress that the question must sometimes be considered, not so much from the industrial point of view as from the Service point of view. In the past it has been disheartening for the Services to see small repair and replacement jobs which they could have done effectively in their own workshops handed out to industry. A balance must be maintained and both sides of the case should always be considered.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: My hon. Friend has answered most of my questions, but not the most important one, namely, the question of Admiral O'Brien.

Mr. Lambton: This is a question which I was waiting for my hon. and gallant Friend to ask. The story which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph and which was referred to by my hon. and


gallant Friend was untrue. Admiral O'Brien is retiring later this year in the normal way and has voiced no disagreement with the Government's policy. He himself is very upset at the story and did his best to stop its being published. The paper withdrew the story from later editions, and it is a pity that my hon. and gallant Friend did not see the later editions.
I have covered as many questions as I could. It has been rather like reading out a catalogue, but so much of the debate was not a question of speech making but a question of answering one question after another.

The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — COINAGE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.47 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill serves to bring up-to-date some of the fairly antique provisions of our coinage law. The Bill has been considered and approved by the Joint Committee and has been through all its stages in the other place.
It is perhaps worth noting that the Bill preserves in our modernised law a number of antique provisions dealing with what is known as the trial of the pyx, which is still to be carried out by a jury of
competent freemen of the mystery of goldsmiths of the City of London".
It is perhaps pleasing to note that such antiquities survive even in this hastily modernising world.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: That antiquity has been preserved, but another antiquity which was much more material has been rejected, namely, the provision that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be Governor of the Mint in Scotland as well as Governor of the Mint in England. I cannot see

why that much more material tradition should not have been preserved.
We on this side are aware that the present Conservative Party is not so traditionally-minded as its predecessors and seems to have parted with many of the better traditions of Conservatism, but this failure is regrettable. A great mistake has been made by keeping the trial of the pyx instead of keeping the governorship of the Mint in Scotland. I hope that this precedent will not be followed in future, because it is inappropriate for a matter of this kind to be dealt with as if it were a mere technicality. It is a matter of the greatest importance to the people of Scotland and to the people of England, who came together by partnership agreement. It is very important that we should remember that partnership, which is the basis of the State today.
I repeat that it is regrettable that a matter of this kind should be disposed of as if it were a mere technicality. It is much more than that and I do not think that it had any place in a consolidation Measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.50 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is purely a consolidation Bill bringing together in one Measure the provisions relating to the attachment of earnings which first apeared in the Maintenance Orders Oct, 1958, extended by the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, and largely supplemented by the Administration of Justice Act, 1970.
The function of this Bill is that on the day when the Administration of Justice Act, 1970, provisions come into force this Bill shall replace them so that members of the legal profession and, indeed,


members of the public will be able to find in one code all the relevant provisions dealing with the attachment of earnings. This is a refreshing example of consolidation taking place almost before the printer's ink is dry on the substantive provisions.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I echo what the Solicitor-General has said. We on this side of the House welcome this Measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SAVINGS BANK BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.52 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is another Bill which is almost entirely consolidating but takes account of certain provisions recommended by the Law Commission. It has been through all its stages in another place. It has been the subject of an approving report by the Joint Consolidation Committee on 27th January this year, and the changes that it makes do nothing more than modernise existing provisions or sweep away outdated or unnecessary provisions.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: We on this side of the House welcome this as a useful consolidation Measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — RENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.53 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is purely a consolidation, Measure and applies only to Scotland. It has been examined and approved by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
The Rent Acts have always applied to England, Wales and Scotland. A few Acts apply only to Scotland and others contain separate Scottish provisions, but, in the main, up to and including the Rent Act, 1965, the Acts were Great' Britain Measures, and this has generally required complicated Scottish application provisions.
The Rent Acts in their application to England and Wales were consolidated in the Rent Act, 1968. This Bill follows the same general lines as the 1968 Act but takes into account all the necessary differences in the application of the Acts to Scotland and includes certain additional provisions which apply only to Scotland or which were enacted subsequent to the passing of the 1968 Act.
The Bill will come into force three months after it is passed in order to allow all the interested professions to become familiar with its layout, and also allow time for the regulations under the old statutes to be revised and re-enacted under the powers of the Consolidated Act.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: As the Minister has indicated, this is a Bill which does largely for Scotland what has already been done by the 1968 Act for England and Wales.
I would not, however, accept that this is purely a consolidation Measure. There are three points which go beyond that, on two of which I need not spend any time. One of them deals with the fact that in Scotland, as distinct from the rest of Great Britain, old and new control is preserved to some extent. This is a material difference. It is not consolidation exactly on the same basis as the rest


of Great Britain. However, this is right and it is inevitable that we should have this distinction still.
Again there is a provision arising out of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, which is a Scottish Act, defining tenancies. There is also a previous definition in the Act of 1920 defining tenancies. To preserve the common law position as it stands in the light of these two Acts—in other words, to preserve the existing provisions—there is a definition in Clause 3(1)(a) which is not strictly consolidating but is a creative provision to do the best that one can to consolidate these two and reconcile them with the existing case law. This is a wholly satisfactory way of proceeding.
May I mention one other matter which is welcome. Incidentally, I welcome these small departures from what is strictly consolidating. The last one that I mention is the anomaly which arose in the application of the Rent Acts to Scotland in that through an oversight a person who required payment of a premium in circumstances set out in Section 29 of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, was deemed not to be guilty of committing an offence by so doing but the person receiving the payment was guilty. This anomaly arose out of an omission in the unamended Rent Act, 1965. The opportunity has been rightly taken in this case of removing that anomaly. Accordingly the Opposition welcome the Bill.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. It is courteous to request the leave of the House.

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
With the leave of the House, I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the welcome that he has given to the Bill. I emphasise that the Bill is purely a Consolidation Measure and that it has been examined and approved by the Joint Committee. However, on the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman made about old and new control, I would point out that this is preserved because in 1957 the laws of England and Wales were different. However, my colleagues and I

will read with great interest what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS AID (RESEARCH CENTRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Eyre.]

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Overseas Development for making himself available on this day, the first after the Easter Recess, for this debate.
I hope the House will forgive me if in introducing the subject I emphasise the point felt strongly by some of us, that it is unfortunate that during almost a year virtually the only opportunities which hon. Members have had to raise matters concerning this vital aspect of governmental policy—overseas aid and development—have been either in Consolidated Fund Bill debates or Adjournment debates or indirectly in the course of other business. Some of us feel strongly that the time has come for a major debate on this significant subject of overseas aid and development, particularly as we now no longer have an independent Ministry conducting the policy on its own feet but have an administration which, while it is very committed, is submerged in the larger Foreign Office with its naturally wider responsibilities.
I know that I speak for right hon. and hon. Members on both sides when I say that we feel strongly that the recommendations of the Select Committee on Overseas Aid and Development, which recently reported to the House, should be taken seriously, particularly where it urges an annual debate on this vital aspect of British policy. Not only do we feel that the dedicated work of so many people involved in the administration of overseas aid and development deserves better and wider recognition in the House, but we recognise that considerable sums


of taxpayers' money are involved in the programme, and the use of this money should not go undebated in the House of Commons.
This brings me to the main theme of the present debate, and I hope, following the example of the last two debates, to keep my remarks fairly brief, since the point can be made concisely. Basically, the point is that, while we are preoccupied in the House and elsewhere with a host of grave social and economic problems on our own doorstep, we may be moving into a world situation in which the so-called industrialised or developed countries are overtaken by events which cannot possibly leave us unscathed. I refer here to the population explosion.
Various statistics from different sources have indicated the magnitude of this problem, but I wonder how many hon. Members realise that it is estimated by most responsible international organisations, on a conservative and cautious basis, that during the next 10 years, the Second Development Decade which has just commenced, we can expect in the developing countries—this excludes Communist China, because statistics are not available for China—an increase in the population of working age of about 225 million, or between 25 and 30 per cent. Moreover, this comes on top of a situation in which already, although precise statistics are hard to come by, for obvious reasons, it is known that the number of unemployed in the developing countries, again excluding China, stands at about 75 million.
Anyone who believes that a problem of that size does not have political implications which will sooner or later affect us in the developed industrialised countries is indulging in serious self-deception.
The International Labour Organisation, which, whatever criticisms one may have of it, is not a body given to melodramatic assessments of the problems with which it is confronted, recently put the point very well in a report delivered to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. This is what the I.L.O. said:
Development with benefits for the few, visible but unavailable to the vast majority, is unlikely to breed domestic stability. It has implications which stretch far beyond the

prospects of the developing countries themselves to the international community".
The report went on:
The world is one because every part of the world is promptly aware of, and increasingly sensitive to, the effect of events in virtually every other part. Growing unemployment in the developing part of the world will not only adversely affect the trade and investments of the developed part of the world—
here we come to the crunch line—
It can destroy the fabric of national societies, as it once did in Europe, and thereby threaten world peace.
If we take that point seriously, we can say that, in our stress on the importance of aid and development programmes, we are not only appealing to the charity and morality of the British people but we are in the best sense addressing ourselves to enlightened self-interest in our nation and other similar industrialised nations.
If we are to tackle the problem of finding employment for the growing population, a problem which, as I have said, is extremely urgent, we must be prepared to contemplate far more drastic measures than have yet been foreseen. It is no good just continuing with a gradual expansion of existing policies, however relevant and valuable they may have been. We have to think of new approaches.
One aspect of the matter which we must quickly grasp is that if we are to try to find jobs for these people, there is little likelihood that we shall find enough jobs in the main urban centres. It is not necessary to travel far in Asia, Latin America or Africa to see the squalor and the political instability represented by the vast shanty towns occupied by unemployed people around almost every major centre of population. I know that the Minister has himself visited many such areas and will agree with what I say. We shall not find opportunities for employment in those sad situations.
We must increasingly investigate means of extending employment in the rural areas of these countries. Some would argue that we must, therefore, give a good deal more thought to agricultural techniques which can be labour-intensive within the developing countries. Others, with a good deal of weighty expertise on their side, will say that if


we are to maintain efficient agricultural production in the developing countries, it is not possible to envisage a great expansion in the number of people directly employed in agriculture.
This puts another challenge to us in Britain, Europe and the industrialised world as a whole, for we must be ready to ensure that we follow the sort of food policies in our own countries which will so encourage agricultural development in the developing countries by giving them assured outlets for the export of their agricultural produce that they can by this industry, in which they are competitive given an equal opportunity, produce the resources which can then be invested in labour-intensive industries spread throughout their communities as a whole.
It is, therefore, directly relevant to the main theme of my subject tonight to draw attention to a rather startling proposition as it stands at the moment. We have a Government who have repeatedly—I am sure that hon. Members on both sides are glad of it—committed themselves to the principle of maintaining priority for overseas aid and development policies, but a Government who at the same time are committed to entry into the European Economic Community, one of the main pillars of which is a common agricultural policy which works directly against the possibility of the developing countries having fair opportunities for the export of their agricultural produce.
I make that point as one directly related to this debate, since we cannot go on to discuss relevant means of providing opportunities for employment in the developing countries unless we are consistent in our approach to their overall economic and social needs, and this, I believe, entails a radical examination of the common agricultural policy and the way in which it works against the interests of the developing countries and their agriculture. Not only are they denied an opportunity for exports, but subsidised exports from Europe are going to the developing countries as the result of the common agricultural policy, directly providing a disincentive to improve production in those countries.
Supposing we can get our strategy right on these wider, more important issues, what shall we do about finding relevant means of giving greater employment

prospects to the people of the developing countries? A great deal has been said in recent years about the importance of what has been described as intermediate technology. I do not need to remind the Minister about this, because he is well briefed on the subject. This is the idea that, instead of going in for capital-intensive projects in the developing countries, we should, wherever possible, seek means of using their wide supply of labour for labour-intensive production. This can ensure that economic progress, where achieved, is shared by the widest possible section of the community, and that it does not result in a technological élite rapidly becoming still better off, sometimes at the expense of the wider community. Therefore, intermediate technology is important, and it is good to see Government Departments in this country and many others responsible for development policies giving so much more priority to this principle within their development programmes.
But there is another problem which we must examine, which is the reason why I sought this debate. It is alarming to see the minute amount of research done both in the industrialised countries and in the developing countries into the unique social, economic, cultural and industrial problems of the developing countries. Too often the research pat-terms in the developing countries are a carbon copy of the plans laid down in the industrialised countries, in which inevitably the needs of the industrialised, relatively sophisticated communities take precedence. What we need is a gigantic stimulation of effort in the world situation as a whole to ensure that more resources go into appropriate research into the special needs of what is, after all, the overwhelming majority of mankind.
In this country the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and previously the Ministry of Overseas Development, under both Administrations, has had a distinguished record in giving pragmatic support to particular institutions, some under its direct control and others less directly under its influence, which are doing valuable work in terms of specialised research. Anyone examining the record will agree that the result is not as effective as it might be because it is too fragmented. Not for the first time, we


should be prepared to look across the Atlantic to our colleagues and friends in Canada who have given a magnificent lead in this respect.
By Act of Parliament last year the Canadians established an international research and development centre, the purpose of which was to co-ordinate and increase the amount of research being done into the problem of the majority of mankind. It said:
The objects of the Centre are to initiate, encourage, support and conduct research into the problems of the developing regions of the world and into the means for applying and adopting scientific, technical and other knowledge to the economic and social advancement of those regions, and, in carrying out those objects

(a) to enlist the talents of natural and social scientists and technologists of Canada and other countries;
(b) to assist the developing regions to build up the research capabilities, the innovative skills and the institutions required to solve their problems;
(c) to encourage generally the co-ordination of international development research; and
(d) to foster co-operation in research on development problems between the developed and developing regions…".
What I have tried to do in this brief debate is to illustrate the magnitude of the problem with which we are confronted, to bring home to the House that we are living in cloud cuckoo-land if we are tempted to believe, cynically, that this is just a problem of those people unfortunate enough to live in the developing countries, and that it will not affect us. It will in the end affect us, and the end may not be that far distant.
Then what I have tried to do is to argue that if we are to do the sort of things that are necessary to assist the Governments of the developing countries to find appropriate techniques for their own territories we must make sure that the context in which we approach the matter is sound and logical, that it is no good just handing out charity with one hand, talking about competitive targets for aid and technical assistance, and at the same time denying the developing countries fair and just access, in the interests of us all, to the markets of the industrialised countries, as happens under the common agricultural policy of the E.E.C.
Having got that context right, we must mobilise a far greater degree of co-ordinated research both in this country and internationally. How much easier it will be to do it internationally if we have appropriate co-ordination within our own countries! Then we must mobilise the right amount of research into the special, unique problems of the developing countries. They are unique, because nowhere else in the world have we ever seen problems of the present magnitude, of such a number of unemployed people, and the prospect of still greater numbers, and the need to find them employment if we are to preserve the political stability of the individual countries and of the world collectively. We must tackle this problem with resolve.
I deeply respect the Minister for his real commitment on this front. I urge him to get together with some of the specialist interests in this country now to see whether we could not achieve far more rapid and successful results if we were to follow the Canadian example in establishing for ourselves the kind of international research development centre that I have described.

8.17 p.m.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I am grateful, as the House is, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) for raising this matter.
The question of a major debate on aid is something that the hon. Gentleman will have to continue to put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The very ingenuity of hon. Members in raising matters relevant to my Department's affairs may make my right hon. Friend less willing to accede to the hon. Gentleman's wish, because there has been a number of debates in recent weeks. There was one just before Easter in which very important matters were raised.
The hon Gentleman has talked tonight about the importance of more research, particularly into the immensely important problem of employment in the future in the developing countries. He asked me two or three weeks ago a question about the new International Development Research Centre in Canada, and I then told him that, as I sincerely feel, I greatly welcome the


setting up of the centre. It has very wide terms of reference, and it has a most distinguished membership. The board has an international character which convinces me that the centre is likely to make a very valuable contribution in the field in which the hon. Gentleman and I and a number of other right hon. and hon. Members are extremely interested.
The hon. Gentleman would like us to follow that example, though not necessarily to set up the same sort of centre. I always listen to his ideas with the greatest care. He and I have co-operated for several years in matters of this kind, and I know, as the House knows, of his great experience and knowledge. We know of the important part he played on the Select Committee which recently reported, and of the most intelligent interest he takes in all matters relating to my Department. Therefore, I say with sincerity that I hope that any suggestions he makes to me or to any of my right hon. Friends will never be listened to with a closed mind—if one can listen with one's mind. But he will understand that I come from the north of England, where men and women are known for their great caution. All of them I think are conservative with a small "c", but fortunately at the moment a great many of them are Conservative with a large "C". Even without my native caution, however, I believe it would be wrong to follow too closely the Canadians in their present organisational arrangement.
As the hon. Gentleman will realise, in Canada there were few if any organisations which have been wholly or mainly concerned with research in relation to the developing countries. The Canadians, with great wisdom, therefore set up this centre and I am extremely pleased. We on the other hand have a number of organisations already for world quality and renown, as the hon. Gentleman will agree. I have already been able to visit a number of them. These organisations have already done very considerable and valuable research relevant to some of the problems the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
I do not need to rehearse, to the hon. Gentleman at least, at great length the work taking place in the Tropical Products Institute or the Anti-locust Research Centre similar units which are

or will be connected with the Anti-locust Research Centre or with the Land Resources Division or the Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine. Probably he knows about them better than I do. They are all contributing to the volume of research which has as its objective very much the central problem which the hon. Gentleman has put.
Apart from these institutes and their various disciplines and research funds, all contributing to the objective, we in the Department are operating a great deal of research on our own account. Part of the money available within the aid programme has been set aside specifically for research into the problems which impede the economic or social development of the developing countries. These funds are administered outside geographical priorities. The Department which is charged with controlling them has a separate sub-head. It makes sense, since a piece of research may be in the interests of many countries. The money set aside for the research is independent of priorities for particular countries and can be used to follow priorities dictated by the subject itself. Another advantage is that the relative independence makes for greater and more effective cooperation with the non-Government organisations, on close connection with which the effectiveness of our research effort depends. I make these points because I think that it was with them in mind that the Canadians set up their I.R.D.C.
The research which is funded by the vote of my Department covers a wide range of disciplines. All the funding is in grant form. But basic criteria cover the expenditure. The work must be directed towards gathering new knowledge or the development of new techniques and relate to the problems impeding the social or economic progress of the developing countries. To an important extent our research funds are used in partnership with the work of several British research institutions working in the same field although not necessarily on the same criterion. For example, we work closely with the U.G.C. in research into trypanosemiasis where pure research could not be expected to show immediate or early benefit and in practice may be subsidised by the U.C.G. We are also in regular partnership with


the Medical Research Council, with which we maintain the Tropical Medicine Research Board. Other subjects are covered and there is growing research into the problems of the economics of development and social problems, particularly including population control.
Just before Easter we had a valuable debate on this matter, and, provided that it meets the criteria I have mentioned, the work can be undertaken either in Britain in a developing country and by British or non-British scientists. I have mentioned the link with the Medical Research Council and we have close co-operation with the Agricultural Research Council and the Social Science Research Council. We commission or approve and support a large number of research projects at universities in the United Kingdom and in other learned institutions. Our activities are analogous to the intentions of the Canadian centre.

Mr. Judd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way because I appreciate the considerate way in which he is replying. Before he leaves his point of how research is organised, can he say a little more about how specifically the Department's assistance for research, as at present organised, is geared to improving, for example, labour-intensive industrial techniques in developing countries? Does not he agree that it is striking that, whereas major industries will spend as much as 6 per cent. of their budgets on research into new production methods, taking the aid programme of industrialised countries as a whole, less than half of 1 per cent. of their total aid budgets is spent on research? Can we he satisfied that the resources are being appropriately used, since we are using such a minute amount on research into what is appropriate?

Mr. Wood: I shall deal with the volume of research in a moment. From what I have said about the specific objective, the hon. Member can rightly deduce that if we believe that any problem is susceptible to further important research, there are a variety of ways in which we can get that research done, either directly ourselves through the means available immediately to us, or through the universities or other learned institutions. There is very little limit under our existing

systems to the ways and methods by which we can get answers to questions which we particularly want answered as well as they can be in present circumstances.
The question at the centre of the hon. Member's remarks is at the centre of my thinking in relation to the developing countries, because I realise that this will be a problem not only to the end of the century but in the next decade, the 1980s, as it is a very important problem in the 1970s themselves. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure, a startling figure which I repeat, of an extra 225 million people wanting jobs in 1980 over 1971. That is the measure of the problem. It is, as I and all my advisers recognise, the greatest cardinal problem, apart, perhaps, from the population increase itself, that we have to face. All I can tell him is that my Department, while I would not say it is preoccupied or obsessed with it, is widely aware of the vital importance of trying to solve this problem, and I myself hope in this coming weekend to join in important discussions with this as the main theme.
Within our research programme we naturally have a number of smaller projects which are researches into economic development and the provision of employment possibilities in various parts of the developing world. We are, naturally, co-operating in various projects carried out by the Intermediate Technology Development Group, the aim of which is to encourage the development of technologies appropriate to those parts of the world which do not necessarily derive the best advantage from attempting to take on advanced technologies immediately.
I therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that, both in these particular ways and in the general way of focussing our attention on this employment problem and having the means at our disposal, either directly or indirectly through the universities or other learned institutions, we are confident that we have the means to institute any research which we need to institute into problems of this magnitude. I hope that he will therefore agree that, although he may from time to time want to make suggestions—which I should greatly welcome—our arrangements have many of the features which


the Canadians are at present proposing to establish. They have in common the feature of international advice and the commissioning of research over wide disciplines, they both attempt to enlist the co-operation of centres of excellence, both in this country and overseas, and they provide a measure of autonomy from the rest of the aid programme.
The hon. Member may take the view that one large comprehensive centre for research is, for some reason, preferable to a number of specialised centres, but I think he will agree that there are arguments both ways. My conviction is that the use of existing centres of excellence with respect for their autonomy also has much to be said for it in our own situation.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the scale of our efforts, especially in his intervention. It is sometimes under-estimated. Our out-stations, although they may be restricted by manpower restraints on the public service, are advancing in financial terms, as is our research Vote. A great many other things in our technical assistance and some other elements of our financial aid have a research component. There are many examples of work done by the British community.
Some commentators, not the hon. Gentleman, tend to compare what we did last year with what other donor countries have announced they intend to do in the future. This leads to the wrong impression among some people interested in aid matters that our effort is meagre. If we compare our actual research aid effort with that of other donor countries, both in quantity and quality it stands up to the most rigorous examination, although as the hon. Gentleman knows,

like my predecessors I would always like to do more.
To return to my main theme, I am not saying that we have nothing to learn from the Canadians and that the results of their research centre will not be extremely valuable to us. All I am saying is that our position is not the same as theirs. We do not have to build an entirely new house. We have one of quite long standing with many good features, including some which the Canadians are planning. Our job is to try to improve our own building, and we constantly try to do this. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press upon us that we must work in exactly the same way as the Canadians. He has given a greater emphasis tonight to the need for us to do more and to do it specifically in relation to this important unemployment problem.
Few hon. Members have as valuable a record as the hon. Member in keeping the needs and interests of developing countries before the Government, whether it is formed from his party or from mine, and in keeping the needs of the developing countries before the British people. I hope the hon. Member will agree to co-operate in future and will bring to bear, in Adjournment debates or in the general debate which he seeks, the astringent criticisms which we have come to expect from him, put never with bitterness but in a constructive way. He can be certain that his aims and mine are almost exactly the same although possibly from time to time the methods by which we try to achieve them may differ a little.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Nine o'clock.